Re: SVGT 1.2: A proposal for how to define SVG whitespace in terms of CSS whitespace

On Jan 31, 2006, at 8:59 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:

> On Jan 31, 2006, at 18:26, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I refer specifically to deprecating its use for a presentational  
>> effect.
>
> I think you will find very little disagreement in the SVG WG that  
> xml:space needs to be deprecated, and that reusing white space  
> properties would be the way forward. The problem is timing. First,  
> this is a change request that is not addressing a bug on a  
> specification that is in its later stages, and second I don't  
> believe we have a sufficient number of existing white space  
> properties to lift from an existing specification that is at a  
> sufficiently advanced level of maturity that we can be allowed to  
> reference it (you can't reference a Working Draft like CSS 3 Text  
> Effects from a Recommendation, otherwise all hell might break loose).

At this rate I would not bet on SVG Tiny 1.2 making REC status first,  
but I see your point. And I agree that this is not one of the most  
critical problems in the spec.

> So 1.3 will very likely deprecate xml:space, but it does not seem  
> possible to address in 1.2.

I'm willing to see this issue deferred to a specific future revision  
of the spec, if that is coming soon. However, the only information  
I'm aware of about future versions has said that there will be 1.2  
Tiny, 1.2 Full, and some far-off future version that will be  
available at a way later date (I think maybe at times it has been  
referred to as 2.0).

So what is the plann for 1.3? Is it indended to be a major new  
feature release that is far off in the future? Is it intended to be a  
cleanup pass that rectifies the spec with existing practice and other  
specs (e.g. in the style of CSS 2.1) and coming up in the near  
future? Is it something else?

If there is a next revision planned that will be primarily a cleanup  
pass, then I would not mind some of my issues being deferred to it  
(this whitespace issue among them). If the next revision will be a  
major new feature-adding excercise far off in the future, then I  
would not be satisfied.

However, in the specific case of whitespace handling, if the SVG WG  
wants to fix it in a future version of the spec I think it should  
discuss the matter with the CSS WG as soon as possible, rather than  
waiting to a later date. Otherwise, there is no guarantee future CSS  
specs will support the right features. I would not be satisfied with  
"we will think about it later" as a resolution for starting the  
discussion with them.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 02:07:25 UTC