- From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:23:48 -0400
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- CC: public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On 3/24/09 12:06 AM, Doug Schepers wrote: > I think you're misinterpreting the intent, sorry if we weren't clear. > "Requirements" there doesn't mean "requirements on the HTML WG"... > it's in the sense of "use cases and requirements" for what we see as > transitioning SVG from a strict-XML format to something with looser > syntax, given market conditions. I am using the English definition of "requirement". For example, I don't see a problem with defining HTML Vector Graphics, a specification that would be based on SVG but make no compatibility claims. > We aren't putting up straw men or playing games, Agree. > we are trying to balance changes to SVG with the risks that that > brings, which is part of W3C consensus. The W3C process doesn't have a special definition of consensus. - Rob
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 04:24:43 UTC