Re: SVG Revision of HTML5 Proposal (ACTION-117)

On 3/24/09 12:06 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> I think you're misinterpreting the intent, sorry if we weren't clear. 
> "Requirements" there doesn't mean "requirements on the HTML WG"... 
> it's in the sense of "use cases and requirements" for what we see as 
> transitioning SVG from a strict-XML format to something with looser 
> syntax, given market conditions.

I am using the English definition of "requirement". For example, I don't 
see a problem with defining HTML Vector Graphics, a specification that 
would be based on SVG but make no compatibility claims.

> We aren't putting up straw men or playing games, 

Agree.

> we are trying to balance changes to SVG with the risks that that 
> brings, which is part of W3C consensus.

The W3C process doesn't have a special definition of consensus.

- Rob