- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:27:14 +0200
- 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