SVG2 Planning Page

From SVG
Jump to: navigation, search


This page captures requirements input for the SVG 2.0 effort and ownership for the different effort. The intent of the Working Group is to use this document to list and prioritize requirements for the new SVG 2.0 features and identify owners for the different activities.

This page also tracks the milestones for the SVG 2.0 effort.


Milestone Description Responsible Target Date Status
List the input received as response to call for requirements on SVG 2.0. Results: SVG2 Requirements Mailing List Feedback‎ Cameron August 15th 2011 Done.
List SVG Tiny 1.2 features missing in SVG 1.1 List features in SVG Tiny 1.2 that are not in SVG 1.2 and should be added to SVG 2.0. Should be added to this document. Results: SVG Tiny 1.2 feature backport Cyril August 15th 2011 Done.
Requirements input gathered and linked to resolutions List (lower in this Wiki page) the set of requirements considered by the SVG WG and note the ones that have been agreed upon in working group RESOLUTIONS Erik September 1st 2011 Done.
SVG 2.0 Requirements and Use Cases Draft Draft document describing the requirements and the use cases addressed by the new SVG 2.0 features considered by the SVG working group. This document is for final review by the group at the Technical Plenary. Erik and Cameron October 14th 2011 See SVG2 Requirements Input
SVG 2.0 Requirements and Use Cases Finalized Document has been reviewed and agreed by the SVG WG. Final agreement on this document freezes the feature set considered for SVG 2.0. Erik and Cameron January 15th 2012 Editor's Draft started
Stub of SVG 2.0 Empty shell SVG 2.0 specification with tools and test infrastructure in place. Provides a starting point for the editor. Has the tools in place for publishing. Documentation of the tools and test integration is documented. Jonathan Watt January, 1st 2012 Done, see
Test suite in place for specification annotations Integration with W3C Test suite Harness Chris Lilley End of February 2012
Prioritized list of requirements Requirements with commitments from people to provide spec text and tests Erik Dahlstrom March 2012 See SVG2 Requirements Commitments
First Editor's draft of SVG 2.0 Stub with annotations of all the new features or changes to be made Tavmjong Bah (Cameron McCormack) April 2012
FPWD of SVG 2.0 Draft with as many feature placeholders filled in as possible SVG WG July 2012
WD of SVG 2.0 Draft with more actual spec text instead of placeholders. To be published shortly after the February F2F meeting. SVG WG February 2013
LCWD of SVG 2.0 SVG WG September 2013
CR of SVG 2.0 SVG WG December 2014

Roles and Owners

Role Owner
Chair(s) Cameron & Erik
Test Effort  ??
Main Editor  ??
Co-Editor(s)  ??

Feature Owners

The following table contains the list of features that are under consideration for SVG 2.0 and the owners. The owners commit to follow the feature through to final recommendation and support the test effort by contributing tests in addition to authoring the feature's specification text. The reviewers will be the group's main reviewer for changes and progress on the feature.

NOTE: This list is not final. It is pending the finalization of the SVG 2.0 requirements.

feature owner reviewer
Color Chris Alex
Gradient Meshes Tav Tab
Catmull Rom Doug  ??
Turtle Graphics Cameron  ??
SVG Compositing Alex (with Rik) Rik

SVG Tiny 1.2 Features Carry-Overs

This section will contain the list of SVG Tiny 1.2 Features that need to be carried over SVG 2.0. See ACTION-3100.

Requirements Input

Path improvements

Document structure

See SVG2 Spec structure for how the specification will be organized and how sections relate to SVG 1.1 and other specifications.

Test Suite Requirements

This was discussed during the June 23rd 2011 SVG teleconference:

Here are the agreements we had:

  • We should use the same harness generating and reporting framework as the CSS Working Group, the framework that Peter Linss has put in place for CSS 2.1 and has now been adopted by W3C. We should adopt the method to have the spec. annotated with the tests that pass or fail.
  • We should start adding tests along with reference SVG files for the expected result (i.e., not just reference images)
  • Try to group related atomic tests into a single test to reduce the management overhead (allows code sharing for tests, for example)
  • We should try to have tests reference specific testable assertion as Chris did with WOFF and Doug is doing with DOM Level 3 Events.
  • Tests must be added to the Mercurial repository at and they,plus the auto-generated harness, will be published on