Changes of SVG2
InfoWorld: New SVG spec irons out overlaps with HTML, CSS
・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
Is Polyfill an implementation?
functionality on older browsers that do not natively support it.
It was asked in advance of CR
• 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
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.
It may be relevant that W3C distributes Polyfill.
• Browser Neutral
• Open Source
• Having Similarity:
XML Namespace declaration vs link to polyfill JS library
What is the necessity that the standardization organization
and the open source software organization are divided?
That reason is universal also in the future?
• Web standards is shifting from rules of behaviors to rules of the logics which
• 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.