Re: SVG 2 and w3c tag process

After further research it appears that "self hosted" explainers (on 
GitHub, for example) are actually commonplace, so I'll just do that.

Of course, before anything goes before the TAG it would be good to work 
through the issues filed against it, e.g. #745, #771 and #772 . I don't 
expect to be done with the prototype anytime too soon, however, and TAG 
would be after that.

Skef Iterum

On 8/20/20 5:24 PM, Skef Iterum wrote:
>
> As some of you are aware I've been attempting to add support for 
> miter-clip and arcs joins into skia on the way to adding them to 
> Blink's SVG stack. That effort has, for the time being, stalled out.
>
> It has been suggested to me that it may be more productive to start 
> down Blink's Intent-to-ship process, which I am now considering. Most 
> of that is my problem but some parts of the process depend on SVG WG 
> involvement.
>
> It looks like the Blink process requirements include:
>
>  1. WPT tests for the feature(s)
>  2. W3C TAG review
>
> A TAG review appears to require, or at least considers highly desirable:
>
>  1. The relevant part of the specification (done)
>  2. An "explainer"
>  3. WPT Tests
>  4. Issues filed against browsers (already existing)
>
> All this amounts to my needing two things: An explainer and acceptance 
> of WPT tests.
>
> So:
>
>  1. It appears that "explainers" are normally written by browser
>     development teams. I suppose I could open up a github repo and add
>     my own explainer, but that seems at least a little weird. Assuming
>     I write a brief explainer, is there somewhere within the SVG WG's
>     control to host it?
>  2. My original plan was to write tests first, but that effort stalled
>     out with https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/22791 and
>     https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/23565 . I can make
>     tests conform to whatever pattern the WG desires but folks on your
>     end need to start working with me again.
>
> More generally, I am requesting help from the WG to achieve a small 
> automated test suite and TAG review for the two new joins sometime in 
> the not-too-distant future.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Skef Iterum
>