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
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
