Re: SVG Revision of HTML5 Proposal (ACTION-117)

Hi, Ian-

Ian Hickson wrote (on 3/23/09 10:26 PM):
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>  >
>>  >      What would be particularly helpful is replies to the topics discussed
>>  >      by these e-mails:
>>  >
>>  >         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Mar/0230.html
>>  >         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Mar/0231.html
>>  >
>>  >      It is not clear to me whether the SVGWG agrees with the reasoning I put
>>  >      forward on these issues or whether I am wrong; in the latter case, it
>>  >      would be helpful if my errors could be pointed out.
>>
>>  With regards to the outstanding issues, we've put what we consider to be
>>  reasonable language in our revision of the sections in question.
>
> The questions weren't really with regard to what the wording should be, so
> much as what the reasoning behind the requests were. It is this
> information that would be most useful, IMHO.

The SVG WG has provided such reasoning at length, in our email 
discussions, in the Requirements section of our proposal [1], and 
throughout the proposal for particular points.  We believe that we've 
given adequate rationale in general.

If you don't understand or agree with the reasoning behind a particular 
point, it would be more productive to put forth a specific question or 
counter-argument around which to have a discussion.  It's hard to 
predict what exactly you're struggling with, but we're happy to help if 
you have specific points; we don't want to waste our time or yours in a 
shotgun approach to clarification, since that's an unbounded task.  As 
mentioned, we are available during the HTML telcons, as well, if you 
want to discuss any given matter.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Mar/0216.html

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 03:14:03 UTC