- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:03:24 -0500
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>, public-cdf@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org, sjoerd@w3future.com, roc@ocallahan.org
Chris Lilley wrote: > Right. HTML 4.0 spec is very poorly worded in this respect Absolutely. > JS> and > JS> certain folks would be a little happier with the SVG 1.2 spec. There > JS> would be no incompatiblity for HTML UAs, > > There isn't. That meme grew from some folks misunderstanding "we took > the wording from WebCGM" to mean "we don't care about HTML" No, "that meme" grew from the "clarifications" received from the SVG working group members when the question of what the SVG spec was actually saying was raised on the SVG mailing list. The problem wasn't the wording per se (which was just unclear, which is par for the course in specs), but the way the initial responses to the clarification request clarified the wording. > In fact that was cleared up on list (by Sjoerd among others) Was Sjoerd speaking for the SVG working group? I don't seem to recall ever seeing an official SVG Working Group response to the issue. Basically, it sounds like we all agree about how this should work and we just need to make sure the specs say what we agree on (so people don't have to go to the mailing list archives and look at the confusing discussion). -Boris
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 22:10:58 UTC