Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

SVG2 Candidate Recommendation (in English)

299 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

The directivity of the activity of W3C which I thinking on the occasion of the transition to the SVG2 candidate recommendation. In English

Veröffentlicht in: Internet
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

SVG2 Candidate Recommendation (in English)

  1. 1. SVG2 Candidate Recommendation https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/ Satoru Takagi W3C Member’s Meeting Japan 2016/10/18
  2. 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/changes.html Changes of SVG2 https://goo.gl/ekuAtb InfoWorld: New SVG spec irons out overlaps with HTML, CSS
  3. 3. From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5
  4. 4. Candidate Recommendation ・Call for Implementations for proving the feasibility of the draft is carried out. ・Entities which cannot confirm implementations in this phase are deleted. ・As much as possible, it is required that an interoperability is confirmed by two or more implementations. After passage of candidate recommendation state, It shifts to Proposed Recommendation
  5. 5. Is Polyfill an implementation? https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Glossary/Polyfill A polyfill is a piece of code (usually JavaScript on the Web) used to provide modern functionality on older browsers that do not natively support it. It was asked in advance of CR
  6. 6. Merits • People other than browser vendors (or OSS browser contributors) can contribute to standardization of browser standards actively. • Plural browsers can be supported by one implementation. Issues and Questions • The implementation which considered the performance and the performance may not be able to be performed. • Quick and large-scale social deployment like a release of a major browser may not be able to be performed. • There is also much functionality unrealizable by Polyfill. • Is just one Polyfill implementation insufficient for an interoperability verification? • Does the functionality which can be implemented by Polyfill have value of standardization?
  7. 7. I expect that it can be considered that Polyfill is one of the implementations. Also in discussion by SVGWG, the support to this view seems to be majority.
  8. 8. Further It may be relevant that W3C distributes Polyfill. Polyfill is • Browser Neutral • Open Source • Having Similarity: XML Namespace declaration vs link to polyfill JS library
  9. 9. Furthermore What is the necessity that the standardization organization and the open source software organization are divided? That reason is universal also in the future? Backgrounds: • Web standards is shifting from rules of behaviors to rules of the logics which realizes it. • Snippets are beginning to be incorporated in specs. • W3C’s standards development have shifted to GitHub. If W3C becomes polyfills distributor, it is already an OSS distributor.

×