On Monday, January 26, 2004, 9:55:45 PM, Thomas wrote:
TD> While we are on this topic and I have your ear, I might mention TD> that I've been made extremely cautious of investing any effort TD> in implementing features from 1.2 since the changes that were TD> introduced to the multi-resolution support.
Does that mean that you believe the changes were detrimental, or does it mean that you are stepping back until the spec stabilizes?
As I stated in my post on www-svg (which I would have hoped you read), yes I consider the changes detrimental, the new formulation will be harder to author correctly, and _much_ harder to implement.
This is based on _actual_ implementation and authoring experience.
Since no one form the WG has responded with regards to my comments I don't know if there are new issues or what. Given the WG terrible track record of providing feedback to 3rd party implementors[*] I've decided that it generally isn't worth the trouble, especially since in the end apparently that implementation feedback is ignored.
So much for 'open' processes. I'm sure the explanation for this is that no one "has the time" but the end result is that the processes appears just as closed and opaque as a proprietary one.
Sorry for the rant, but things are _really_ bad here!
[*] I currently have three or four outstanding issues with the WG,
I have yet to receive any feedback on them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
