- From: Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:47:29 +1000
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, www-svg@w3.org, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, abarth@webkit.org, eric@webkit.org
You miss the point. The comment about vapourware was about HTML5 as a whole, not individual aspects of HTML5+SVG integration. If you can't understand the explanation about the comment was about the whole spec. then there's no point trying to justify a pointless argument. HTML5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware Alex --Original Message--: >On Jun 1, 2010, at 12:58, Alex Danilo wrote: > >>> In any case, whatever incompleteness there might be is so small that it doesn't make any sense at all not to treat HTML5 as completely SVG-relevant as-is right now. You can see that http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/ParserIssues is pretty short. I realize that REC might be a bit further away, but it would be folly for the SVG WG to treat HTML5 as vaporware until it's "done" from the Process perspective. > >> So IMHO it fits the description of vapourware until someone actually implements >> all of the parts of a very comprehensive and complex spec. > >I disagree, but the status of the whole spec is beside the point. > >What matters in the context of the SVG WG is that the parts relevant to SVG integration have been specced and implemented (in a browser and in a validator). Thus, SVG-in-HTML5 is ahead of an HTML(4)+SVG integration profile, which *is* vaporware. > >-- >Henri Sivonen >hsivonen@iki.fi >http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 12:48:35 UTC