Re: Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
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 Çelik wrote:
> Comments inline.
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 5:54 PM L. David Baron 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=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
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
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
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
Comments inline.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 5:54 PM L. David Baron 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=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
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
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=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. -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 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
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 12:38 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > A (non-changed) part of the charter says under SVG2: "This > specification updates SVG 1.1 to include HTML5-compatible parsing". Is > that in reference to > https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/single-page.html#embedded-HTMLElements or > something else? I.e. does it mean the SVG WG wants to change the HTML > parsing algorithm to put and with > non-integration-point SVG parent into the HTML namespace in the HTML > parser? I see the note in that section you link that says: > Currently, within an SVG subtree, these tagnames are not recognized by the > HTML parser to > be HTML-namespaced elements, although this may change in the future. > Therefore, in order > to include these elements within SVG, one of the following must be used: > ... The "this may change in the future" part sounds like someone thought that it might be the case in the future. Saying that SVG 2 "includes HTML5-compatible parsing" is a bit odd, though, since that behavior is defined in the HTML spec. In any case, given the group's intended focus on stabilizing and documenting what is currently implemented and interoperable, I doubt that making such a change would be in scope. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018, at 4:59 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > 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 few high level comments (I only looked at sections 1 and 2): The stated primary focus of the charter period is stabilization and testing, and I think this is the right thing to spend most of the time on, so we should support this charter for this. The stated secondary focus is new graphical features if they have broad consensus. I agree that any such work needs broad consensus so that we don't end up with features with few or no implementations. Since that has been a problem in the past, I would prefer something be said explicitly about consensus from implementors here. The Core SVG document mentioned in the Deliverables section is new and is intended to define a subset that is used in OpenType SVG glyphs and potentially other places. I'm fine with working on this, although I question whether it duplicates or replaces some of the work done as part of the SVG Integration spec (which did not progress beyond a WD). So clarification on the relationship to that spec might be good. In section 1. Scope it says "The SVG WG develops a single deliverable, the SVG specification" but in section 2. Deliverables, multiple specifications are mentioned. These seem in conflict. No particular comment on how realistic the target publication dates are, since I haven't been paying attention recently to the group's work to know how accurate they are. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:23 AM Cameron McCormack wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 12:38 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > A (non-changed) part of the charter says under SVG2: "This > > specification updates SVG 1.1 to include HTML5-compatible parsing". Is > > that in reference to > > https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/single-page.html#embedded-HTMLElements or > > something else? I.e. does it mean the SVG WG wants to change the HTML > > parsing algorithm to put and with > > non-integration-point SVG parent into the HTML namespace in the HTML > > parser? > > I see the note in that section you link that says: > > > Currently, within an SVG subtree, these tagnames are not recognized by the > > HTML parser to > > be HTML-namespaced elements, although this may change in the future. > > Therefore, in order > > to include these elements within SVG, one of the following must be used: > > ... > > The "this may change in the future" part sounds like someone thought that it > might be the case in the future. Saying that SVG 2 "includes > HTML5-compatible parsing" is a bit odd, though, since that behavior is > defined in the HTML spec. In any case, given the group's intended focus on > stabilizing and documenting what is currently implemented and interoperable, > I doubt that making such a change would be in scope. Thanks. I think it would be prudent for Mozilla to request that " updates SVG 1.1 to include HTML5-compatible parsing," be struck from the charter, so that changes to the HTML parsing algorithm can't be justified using an argument from a charter that we approved. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@mozilla.com ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 7:59 PM 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 (Not a charter comment yet. At this point a question.) A (non-changed) part of the charter says under SVG2: "This specification updates SVG 1.1 to include HTML5-compatible parsing". Is that in reference to https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/single-page.html#embedded-HTMLElements or something else? I.e. does it mean the SVG WG wants to change the HTML parsing algorithm to put and with non-integration-point SVG parent into the HTML namespace in the HTML parser? (Even with evergreen browsers, changing the HTML parsing algorithm poses the problem that, if the algorithm is ever-changing, server-side software cannot make proper security decisions on the assumption that their implementation of the HTML parsing algorithm from some point in time matches the behavior of browsers. ) -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@mozilla.com ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
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=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FGraphics%2FSVG%2Fsvg-2019-ac.html -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 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
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
On 06/23/2017 02:44 AM, L. David Baron wrote: The W3C is proposing a new charter for: Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) Working Group https://www.w3.org/2017/04/svg-acreview-2017.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0006.html Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through Monday, July 17. (Note that there was a previous review in December; this proposal replaces the proposal in that review.) Note that this charter reduces the scope of the SVG working group (transferring all joint work between SVG and CSS to CSS only) with the plan to use the time in the charter to complete SVG2, which now includes the SVG Integration work. 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. I think you should ask Amelia Bellamy-Royds for her thoughts, as I think her participation would be critical to the success of the SVGWG and she likely has detailed insight into the appropriateness of the charter and its various clauses. I'll also note that as an Invited Expert she has not been asked to comment on the proposed charter... while the CSSWG typically invites all its members to review the charter prior to proposing it to the AC, afaict this has not happened for the SVG charter [1]. [1] https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=www-svg=t=charter ~fantasai ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
The W3C is proposing a new charter for: Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) Working Group https://www.w3.org/2017/04/svg-acreview-2017.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0006.html Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through Monday, July 17. (Note that there was a previous review in December; this proposal replaces the proposal in that review.) Note that this charter reduces the scope of the SVG working group (transferring all joint work between SVG and CSS to CSS only) with the plan to use the time in the charter to complete SVG2, which now includes the SVG Integration work. 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. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 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
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
On Friday 2016-12-09 18:15 -1000, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing a revised charter for: > > Web Security Interest Group > https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/websec-ig.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Nov/0009.html OK, please also ignore this thread, as I again forgot to change the subject line. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 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
Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
The W3C is proposing a revised charter for: Web Security Interest Group https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/websec-ig.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Nov/0009.html Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through Friday, January 6, 2017. 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. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 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
Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group
The W3C is proposing a new charter for: Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) Working Group https://www.w3.org/2016/11/svg-charter.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Nov/0008.html Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through Friday, December 23. Note that this charter reduces the scope of the SVG working group (transferring all joint work between SVG and CSS to CSS only) with the plan to use the time in the charter to complete SVG2. (I believe the plan after that is likely to close the group.) 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. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 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
