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

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:42 PM Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>
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.