Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion?

> So the 'extensive discussions with the community' I was being told I should defer to earlier turn out to be private discussions on a private list the community never saw. Perhaps people who took offense at my earlier use of the term 'clique' might wish to reconsider?

No, I wouldn't. Yes, of course, obviously, there was a detailed technical design team, which I was not involved in. But the significant choices were not made in secret (as my two previous messages show); they were exposed in drafts as they should have been, and they were discussed on this list by people who took an interest.

None of which means that the decisions are sacred. Could we please focus on debugging the current format, and separately on possible proposals to extend it?

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 22-Jan-20 08:43, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:42 PM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de <mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>> wrote:
> 
>     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
> 
> 
> So the 'extensive discussions with the community' I was being told I should defer to earlier turn out to be private discussions on a private list the community never saw. Perhaps people who took offense at my earlier use of the term 'clique' might wish to reconsider?
> 
> One of the reasons I did not want to get involved at the time was precisely because I didn't want to make things take even longer.
> 
> The SVG 2.0 spec is already under development. SVG-Tiny 2.0 is not being considered. I am looking into making a formal proposal to move SVG-Tiny to historic.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 