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

Re: SVG 1.2 Comments

From: Craig Northway <craign@cisra.canon.com.au>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:00:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4194DE02.5080603@cisra.canon.com.au>
To: James Bentley <James.Bentley@guideworkstv.com>, www-svg@w3.org

Hi,

Please remember, as Peter has already said in this thread, all emails 
that come from a working group member to this list are not necessarily 
the working group response. If it is the official working group response 
I'm sure it will be stated in the email, anything else are personal 
opinions.

I'm guessing that the official last call responses (formally addressing 
the issue) probably won't come until after the review period ends and we 
have received and reviewed all last call comments.

Craig

James Bentley wrote:

>What is the SVG WG response to the following comment - I may have missed it.
>Thanks.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
>Scooter Morris
>Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:31 PM
>To: www-svg@w3c.org
>Subject: SVG 1.2 Comments
>
>"
>*
>*General comments*
>*It is my belief that the focus of SVG should be on Scalable Vector 
>Graphics, regardless of the pressures put on the working group by 
>constuencies that are hoping to provide a broader base upon which to 
>build applications.  In Section 5.1 of the Architecture of the World 
>Wide Web, it clearly states that "Orthogonal abstractions benefit from 
>orthogonal specifications" and that "A specification should clearly 
>indicate which features advance into territory rightfully governed by 
>another specification."  "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 16:00:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:52 UTC