Re: Comments on SVG 1.2 from a Gecko developer

Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> Which is great. I hope that a single engine is possible, but I fear that 
> unintended specification conflicts may show up when we actually try to 
> implement it that way, and the best way I know to avoid that is to share 
> specifications by reference wherever possible.

That's one way of finding conflicts, but the best way to ferret them out 
are actual implementations (in this case of compound document UAs). Say, 
to take a totally random example, if Gecko support SVG natively we would 
see if a single engine is possible, or what prevents that from being 
possible. Doing that now while 1.2 is still flexible would certainly be 
very helpful *nudge* *nudge* *hint* *hint*.

-- 
Robin Berjon