[rfc-i] Where was the discussion?

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Jan 21 10:42:05 PST 2020


On 21.01.2020 19:26, Doug Royer wrote:
> On 1/20/20 11:01 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> I have read all posts on the RFC-I list that include the string 'SVG'.
>> I find that almost no mention whatsoever was made of SVG-Tiny until it
>> appeared in the drafts. There is barely any mention of an SVG profile
>> before it is asserted that the decision to use a profile of SVG is
>> immutable in 2014. I therefore reject the suggestion that this was
>> sufficiently discussed at the time.
>>
>> If people want to claim that something was discussed and decided, I am
>> going to be asking for a link to the post where that happened.
>
> I also agree. I ran across this topic because someone Cc'd the topic on
> a WG years ago. At the time I said that it needed to be discussed in a
> more open forum. It never was.
>
> There seems to be some channel of RFC's that make it, and I never seen
> the discussion. Mostly I do not care. In this case I added myself to
> that list when I found it. The feedback was limited. And I could not
> find the discussion history.
>
> That is the problem with non-WG drafts. Assuming you can find the
> mailing list (if any), often no history is preserved.

There was a mailing list (rfc-design), and yes, it was preserved. But it
wasn't public, so the archives aren't either.

 From my recollection, there wasn't a lot of discussion on SVG itself,
as most of the team members were busy with different parts of the specs.

And then of course this all was supposed to be finished years earlier,
and a new iteration in the works already.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list