Reminder: SVG 1.2 Tiny Last Call Comments Requested

Hi, Folks-

I just wanted to remind everyone that the SVG 1.2 Tiny specification is
currently in Last Call, and we are actively seeking comments.  We do
understand how busy everyone is, but we wanted to emphasize that the
later the comments, the more challenging it will be for us to address
them in a way we're all happy with.

The Last Call period ends on 10 October 2008, and we are unlikely to be
able to extend it, given our schedule constraints.  Please see the
forwarded email below for details on commenting.

Thanks-
-Doug Schepers, on behalf of the SVG WG


Doug Schepers wrote (on 9/15/08 4:22 PM):
> Dear SVG Community-
> 
> The SVG Working Group is proud to announce a new Last Call publication
> of the SVG 1.2 Tiny specification, available here:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/
> 
> During the previous Last Call, many comments were registered, among them
> questions regarding loose wording in the specification that would lead
> to interoperability problems, potential architectural incompatibilities
> with other W3C specifications or existing implementation, and the
> inclusion of specific features, as well as the scope of the specification.
> Many of these comments were addressed before the transition to
> Candidate Recommendation, but others were not sufficiently resolved, for
> which we apologize.  During CR, we made a concerted effort to correct
> those issues we had not addressed properly before, and learned from
> direct implementation what other changes were needed.
> 
> Therefore, we are returning to Last Call to invite comments from
> interested parties.  The Last Call period will run for 4 weeks, until 10
> October 2008.  We encourage early review.
> 
> This specification has been rather long in the making, and we have
> several vendors, organizations, and individuals with a time-sensitive
> dependency upon SVG 1.2 Tiny.  In order to meet our obligations to them,
> and to the SVG community at large, we hope to have an orderly transition
> toward Recommendation status, and will work with our commentors to
> achieve that goal responsibly.
> 
> Our Candidate Recommendation experience has shown that this
> specification has been implemented and is appropriate for mobile
> devices, and at least one desktop browser.  We believe that it is a
> sound and valuable addition to the SVG family of specifications.  In the
> past, we have stated that this will form the core of SVG 1.2 Full, to be
> implemented on desktop browsers as well, but we are now considering
> making a new specification, SVG Core 2.0, which would serve as the basis
> for all implementations.  SVG 2.0 Full and Mobile specifications would
> build on that core with specific modules.  We invite feedback on this
> idea, and ask that reviews of this specification are made in that context.
> 
> 
>  Commenting
> 
> We will be using a Last Call Comment tracking tool to make sure that all
> comments are registered and satisfactorily addressed.  We will consider
> all comments, but because of the state of implementation, and due to
> market pressures to finalize this specification, we are constrained in
> how we can address comments that do not pertain to changes made since
> the previous Last Call.  So that we can make sure to answer all Last
> Call feedback in our Disposition of Comments, we ask that only one
> subject is addressed per email, except in the case of typos and other
> non-substantive corrections.  We will strive to act politely,
> responsibly, promptly, and in good faith, and hope that this will be
> reciprocated.
> 
> You can register comments in one of two ways:
> 
> 1) By sending emails to the list www-svg@w3.org, with the preface
> "[1.2T-LC]" in the subject line
> 2) By using our bug-reporting interface (for which you will have to
> create a separate account):
>   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=SVG
> 
> A non-normative single-page version of the specification is also
> available for review purposes:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/single-page.html
> 
> 
>  Summary of Changes
> 
> We significantly tightened up wording and were more rigorous in defining
> and linking to terms and other keywords (elements, attributes, and so
> on).  In general, we held ourselves to a much higher standard for this
> draft of the specification.
> 
> We did add a small number of features, such as the addition of the
> 'buffered-rendering' property for optimization purposes, and clarified
> certain functionality, such as for the 'title' and 'desc' elements, but
> did so very conservatively and only to match implementation or user
> needs.  We also added new attributes for enabling community-driven
> semantics, such as the 'rel' and 'rev' attributes, that pose no
> additional burden on implementations beyond placing them in the DOM.
> 
> At the time the SVG 1.2 specification was originally developed, work on
> the DOM and on HTML had stopped at W3C, and so the desired functionality
> for rich Web applications, one use to which SVG was being put, was
> included in the SVG specification itself.  During the course of this
> process, renewed effort has been put into these area at W3C, and so the
> SVG WG is aligning as much as possible with those efforts.  Some of the
> functionality originally developed in SVG was split out, such as the
> Element Traversal specification.  Other work was aligned to efforts in
> other specifications, such as mousewheel events and client-server
> communication (getURL and postURL were changed to coordinate with the
> XmlHttpRequest specification).  Other features were dropped based on
> feedback, such as the Connection (sockets) interface, and it is expected
> that future SVG specifications will defer to the work being done in that
> area in the HTML5 and Web Applications WGs.
> 
> The DOM Level 3 Events specification is a special case, however.
> Because of its maturity, it was already implemented and deployed in
> mobile devices while it was still a W3C Note.  That specification is now
> under renewed and active development, and may be changed or extended to
> meet the needs of browser vendors.  Therefore, the normative dependency
> to DOM Level 3 Events in SVG 1.2 Tiny has been replaced with a normative
> dependency on DOM Level 2 Events where possible, and where necessary,
> functionality has been added to the uDOM to match what has already been
> implemented in conforming SVG 1.2 Tiny user agents.  The SVG WG
> recognizes that any incompatibility that emerges from this subset must
> be superseded by the DOM Level 3 Events specification for all
> future SVG specifications.  We anticipate that these difference will be
> small and manageable.
> 
> Additionally, we have changed the interface structure of the uDOM to
> better match existing desktop browser implementation and the DOM
> specifications.
> 
> 
>  Test Suite
> 
> In the process of refining the specification, we created a much more
> comprehensive test suite, which in turn led to positive changes in the
> specification itself, and which we believe will promote a high degree of
> interoperability.  The test suite is publicly available:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/Overview.html
> 
> We have already produced interim implementation reports which show very
> good coverage, and we will be conducting another Test Fest at the end of
> the month to produce the final draft of this implementation report
> (pending any changes to the specification based on LC comments, of course).
> 
> Thanks very much!
> 
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers, on behalf of the SVG WG
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 26 September 2008 21:35:34 UTC