W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2006

Re: SVG Tiny 1.2 is now a Candidate Recommendation

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:21:31 -0700
Message-Id: <8CCA5916-89C1-4FEF-B26B-FDB8E0AF1FFE@apple.com>
Cc: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>

On Aug 13, 2006, at 11:52 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:

>  Heck Maciej, you write software, you know what a release is about.  
> Safari 2.0.4 (419.3) still doesn't seem to know that attributes  
> without a prefix are in no namespace  do you really expect SVG  
> Tiny 1.2 to be perfect? I am well aware that the parallels between  
> software and specs only go so far, but they do hold to a point. If  
> you'd waited until you supported everything perfectly right before  
> shipping would you be where you are today? We have the same problem.

I'll respond to this since you asked for me by name. I think the key  
difference is that your ability to fix bugs in software doesn't end  
when it ships. But for a spec it largely does, since making  
incompatible changes once a spec achieves REC status is nearly  
impossible (even if the changes are obviously right and even if no  
one implemented the old behavior). Furthermore, a spec being in a non- 
final state doesn't prevent anyone from doing whatever they like in  
software. Consider that HTTP 1.1 is still a "Draft Standard" in the  
IETF process and yet it is much more widely and interoperably  
implemented than any W3C REC. To think that a spec has to "ship" on a  
timely schedule like software is to confuse two very unlike things.  
Combined, these two things mean there are much higher costs to  
"shipping" and much lower costs to "not shipping" compared to software.

Just to be clear though, my primary objection isn't to the many  
remaining problems in SVGT 1.2, but to the WG not following the W3C  
process. Doug's explanation notwithstading, I still think this is the  
case. This could have easily been remedied by issuing a Last Call for  
the most recent Working Draft (after many substantial changes were  
made), as I think most people expected to happen. I do not see why  
the WG chose to play shenanigans instead.

Received on Monday, 14 August 2006 22:21:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:14 UTC