>> My question is: why making an SVG-specific version first and then a >> more general-purpose XBL specification, XBL 2.0? > > Because a more general purpose one will take longer to make and require > input from more groups. The idea is to transition the RCC over to sXBL > so that the eventual XBL 2 is an upwards compatible superset of sXBL. This contradicts with your next point, a bit. >> Anything that will be defined here as sXBL will certainly also be in >> the more general XBL 2.0? > > Yes - its to be a strict superset. If it will be a strict superset, don't the other groups have to agree on what you have created now? Starting large and ending small (the SVG profile) will probably give better results. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>Received on Friday, 3 September 2004 13:13:29 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:54:51 GMT