On Wednesday, January 28, 2004, 8:18:46 PM, Thomas wrote: TD> Chris Lilley wrote:
>> 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? TD> As I stated in my post on www-svg (which I would have hoped you TD> read), Is that the post from 13 January starting "This got lost in my drafts folder."? Yes, I have read it (see below). However, your point above seemed to be more general, about SVG 1.2 as a whole, so I was merely trying to clarify whether you had ceased implementing all 1.2 features because of churn or because you were unsatisfied with one particular feature. TD> yes I consider the changes detrimental, the new formulation TD> will be harder to author correctly, and _much_ harder to implement. So you said. Your comments, along with other folks comments, will of course be taken into account. TD> This is based on _actual_ implementation and authoring experience. You said that, too (and I am well aware, having seen the demos you gave to the WG). It wasn't clear from your mail on this list whether that was the reason for halting development on *other* 1.2 features as well; thanks for the clarification. TD> Since no one form the WG has responded with regards to my comments I see responses from Dean in less than 24 hours on the part of your email that referred to a clear error in the spec; if we publish something that has a clear and obvious error, we can get rapid turnaround. The textflow error was due to bugs in an implementation; once we were alerted to that, I was looking around for another implementation to test on, to help solve that, hence my contribution to this thread on FlowText in the first place. The parts of your message that refer to implementation feedback and tradeoffs are well presented but clearly need discussion and can't just be agreed with the same day. TD> I don't know if there are new issues or what. There are always new issues. TD> Given the WG terrible track record of providing feedback to 3rd TD> party implementors[*] I've decided that it generally isn't worth TD> the trouble, especially since in the end apparently that TD> implementation feedback is ignored. Sorry that your view has soured since you left the group. TD> So much for 'open' processes. I'm sure the explanation TD> for this is that no one "has the time" Your words not mine, so don't be so sure. Its certainly not my explanation. Unless you were expecting us to just accept all your points without any discussion time? Having experienced the WG from the inside I would expect you to have some understanding of how the discussion process works. TD> but the end result is that the processes appears just as closed TD> and opaque as a proprietary one. TD> Sorry for the rant, but things are _really_ bad here! Well, sorry that you feel that way and sorry it apears that way on the outside. TD> [*] I currently have three or four outstanding issues with the WG, TD> I have yet to receive any feedback on them. Feel free to remind us of them if you feel they are getting ignored. As you know, the WG has an issues list. You also know the sort of size it can grow to, so an issue might not get discussed for a month or more because other issues are being given their turn. -- Chris mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
