Thanks. Revised comments submitted at: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2019Jan/0010.html
-David On Thursday 2019-01-24 23:32 -0800, Tantek รelik wrote: > Comments inline. > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 5:54 PM L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > In general this is very good. > > > > -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. > > Add: ... especially any new features. > > Based on just the past two years of new feature implementation (CSS > etc.), It's quite likely that we wouldn't be able to prioritize > allocating time to debating/discussing details of new SVG features > (much less implementing them), before the end of this charter period. > > > 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. > > Two things: > > 1. This charter sentence concerns me a lot. It feels too open ended > and underspecified as to what new graphical features. I'd prefer that > this sentence be rewritten for new feature incubation / development to > happen across the SVG CG / SVG WG similar to new feature incubation / > development happens in WICG and graduates to WPWG (Soon to be > WebAppsWG). > > 2. This (even the just the existing concerns noted above) is worth a > FO. I would reword the double-negative ("shouldn't be sufficient ... > but only") for clarity, e.g.: > "We'd like this sentence to be clearer that "broad consensus" needs to > include consensus of implementors; a single implementor is > insufficient; broad consensus must be include explicit interest from > at least two implementors in addition to users interested in a > feature." > > > > 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. > > These are good. Also perhaps drop this from 3.1 W3C Groups: > " > Web Platform Working Group > Coordinate on integration of SVG and HTML, and on compatibility with > the Canvas API specifications. > " > As that WG will not exist by the time the SVG WG gets restarted. > > Thanks, > > Tantek -- ๐ L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ ๐ ๐ข Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ ๐ 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
