Re: Dependencies - SVG & SMIL Animation

AndrewWatt2001@aol.com wrote:

> Thanks for that. I realise that it may not be possible for you publicly to
> name dates. That's ok by me. It sounds as if the dependencies are in hand.

I believe so.

> I
> was a little concerned when I saw the SVG August CR was referencing a
> December 1999 WD of SMIL Animation (when there had been two further drafts
> before 2nd August). That raised a slight doubt in my mind about coordination.
> :)

Entirely reasonable.

> I thought that "SMIL Boston" was now a term no longer used and we should
> refer to it as SMIL 2.0 (as per the Working Draft of 21st September) or did I
> misunderstand something? 

No, I just forgot that this stunning piece of private information - the
followup to version 1.0 will be called 2.0 - was now public knowledge ;-)

> I assumed that the term "SMIL Boston" was being dropped.
Yep.

--
Chris