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

Re: Does SVG 1.0 define this?

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:28:39 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200406142128.i5ELSe000694@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-svg@w3.org

> Although, we couldn't really tell people what to do with the XLink
> namespace anyway.

Surely the real problem here is that, in spite of popular beliefs, most
of the other standards are about structural semantics, whereas SVG is
about presentation.  Coming up with a valid meaning for a merger of
two structural standards is easier than combining something with 
only implied presentation with something that is already supposed to
more or less fully define it.
Received on Monday, 14 June 2004 17:42:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 23:52:56 GMT