Where is the SVGWG evidence or methodology for the SVG1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 specifications?

Where is the SVGWG evidence or methodology for the SVG1.0, 1.1 and 1.2  
specifications?

regards


Jonathan Chetwynd

j.chetwynd@btinternet.com
http://www.openicon.org/

+44 (0) 20 7978 1764



I am being asked to present a variety of evidence to support request  
for changes for example
from Doug's recent posting http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Jul/0186.html

You may be right, but it's hard to tell without more data.  Can you  
please outline some concrete use cases and requirements, preferably  
citing existing practice, so we can work on the technical aspects of  
just what would need to happen to satisfy those use cases?

Since you are serving as the advocate for what you term "naive users",  
and want to get them more involved in setting standards, I suggest  
that you engage them directly in finding what they do today, what they  
want to be able to do, and what they feel is blocking them from doing  
it. It's probably not reasonable to push them on technical details, so  
anecdotal examples from their perspective is probably enough for us to  
drill into technical solutions.  Please indicate where the use cases  
are identified by your constituents, and where you have made  
inferences and conclusions based on your observation.

There's no need to be overly formal in your report (though that may be  
useful for you to reuse it for your own purposes), but thoroughness  
will help us to produce the best solution.

Thanks for identifying a possible use case and bringing it to our  
attention.  If we find that the data merits it, this could form part  
of the basis for a module.  It may be that we find the use cases can  
be adequately solved with other means or other technologies, so your  
input won't be wasted even if the SVG WG doesn't end up specifying  
anything, since hopefully you will have gotten some solution.