W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2004

Re: The 'hanlder' element

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:27:14 +0200
Message-ID: <172196220.20040721172714@w3.org>
To: James Bentley <James.Bentley@guideworkstv.com>
Cc: 'Robin Berjon' <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, "'www-svg@w3.org'" <www-svg@w3.org>

On Wednesday, July 21, 2004, 4:38:56 PM, James wrote:


JB> We are considering SVG Tiny 1.2 as part of our assessment, and yes it
JB> does solve many issues that were raised when we implemented to 1.1 Tiny.
JB> Some issues still remain.

It would be helpful to have a list of them, would that be possible?

JB> Many of these issues center around interactivity,
JB> image formats, conditional processing and external reference . We would also
JB> like some restrictions relaxed and impose others.

Is it the requirement to support two particular formats that you find
problematic, or the lack of other formats with mandated support?

JB> Thank you for the information on MicroDOM. I am very curious to discover
JB> how well this matches up to what we have implemented. As always, we would
JB> seek to match up with standards wherever possible.

JB> Also, thank you for the consideration. I am confident that the problems will
JB> be solved, but I am concerned that we will travel too far down a development
JB> path that diverges from the specification.

In that case I encourage you to track SVG Tiny 1.2 as it moves through
Last Call. Tell us how it meets your needs and how it doesn't.

We would also be very interested in MicroDOM implementation experience.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:27:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:54 UTC