You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The last vivid discussion documented here seems to be from TPAC 2019.
The expectation expressed therein was to have a ”final“ spec ready by the end of the following year, i.e. 2020.
I have no insights whatsoever what happened afterwards – and neither do most people interested in the advancement of SVG outside the WG and W3C. I’m willing to assume that somehow the pandemic killed any further progress.
However, it seems unacceptable by the W3C Recommendation Track to have a spec in TR space linger for so long without any updates. In other words, the CR should have been revised, returned to WD or discontinued if it could not advance to PR. Most of these should have led to /TR/SVG being redirected to 1.1 again. At the very least, a sticky note should inform readers about the current status and prospective progress.
The W3C website tells me that the SVG WG is still chartered at least until the middle of the current year. w3c/strategy#432 If members are not doing anything else, they should at least have told the public about it.
If active work on SVG2 is just about to start again, that would be great of course.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG points to the SVG2 CR from 2018-10-04. That is 5½ years ago.
The last vivid discussion documented here seems to be from TPAC 2019.
The expectation expressed therein was to have a ”final“ spec ready by the end of the following year, i.e. 2020.
I have no insights whatsoever what happened afterwards – and neither do most people interested in the advancement of SVG outside the WG and W3C. I’m willing to assume that somehow the pandemic killed any further progress.
However, it seems unacceptable by the W3C Recommendation Track to have a spec in TR space linger for so long without any updates. In other words, the CR should have been revised, returned to WD or discontinued if it could not advance to PR. Most of these should have led to /TR/SVG being redirected to 1.1 again. At the very least, a sticky note should inform readers about the current status and prospective progress.
The W3C website tells me that the SVG WG is still chartered at least until the middle of the current year. w3c/strategy#432 If members are not doing anything else, they should at least have told the public about it.
If active work on SVG2 is just about to start again, that would be great of course.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: