On Sunday 2018-12-23 09:59 -0800, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing a revised charter for: > > Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) Working Group > https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/svg-2019-ac.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Dec/0006.html > > Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through > Friday, January 25. > > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should > say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should > support or oppose it. Given our past involvement, we should > probably have some comment, even if it's simply in support. > > A comparison with the current charter is: > https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2F04%2Fsvg-2017.html&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FGraphics%2FSVG%2Fsvg-2019-ac.html
Based on the comments from Henri and Cameron, I propose to submit the following comments. Please let me know in the next 24 hours if there's anything wrong with them. -David We generally support this charter and its focus on stabilization and testing, although we're not sure we'll be able to put significant effort into supporting the group's work. There are two particular concerns we have with the charter. The first is with the sentence "As a secondary focus, the group may address modules for new graphical features for SVG, once there is broad consensus on adding each such feature to the Web Platform." We'd like this sentence to be clearer that "broad consensus" needs to include consensus of implementors; it shouldn't be sufficient if there are a significant number of users interested in a feature but only a single implementor. The second is with the statement that SVG 2 updates SVG 1.1 to include HTML5-compatible parsing. While that's probably fine, we'd like it to be clear that changes to the HTML parsing algorithm are out of scope; the HTML parsing algorithm should be maintained in the HTML specification, and should be changed very rarely due to the high costs of updating both client-side and server-side software and the costs of those pieces of software being out-of-sync. We also have a few other smaller comments: - The proposed "Core SVG" specification seems in some ways to duplicate or replace the work in https://www.w3.org/TR/svg-integration/ . It would be useful to clarify the relationship. - The statement in the Scope section that "The SVG WG develops a single deliverable" seems to conflict with the deliverables section. -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
