On Jun 20, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Chris Lilley wrote: > > On Thursday, June 8, 2006, 11:41:17 PM, Ian wrote: > > IH> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Chris Lilley wrote: > >>> The WG thus believes that the statement is correct, and as one of >>> the >>> authors of that specification I concur. > > IH> Please mark my disagreement clearly in your disposition of > comments. > > > No problem. The fact that you believe that SVG Tiny 1.2 does not > comply with AWWW - a specification that explicitly states that it > has no conformance criteria - has been duly noted. If that's your point of view on the matter, then why does SVG Tiny 1.2 claim to be in accordance with AWWW? Wouldn't that be a trivial statement, that is then true of, say, a toaster oven? I don't think Ian was wrong to assume that the statement he objected to was meant to be meaningful. Regards, MaciejReceived on Tuesday, 20 June 2006 22:40:15 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:34 GMT