Re: [svgwg] What should happen regarding 1.2 Tiny features that are not mentioned in SVG2 spec?

Even if none of those features make it to SVG2. I feel like the spec 
should at least acknowledge 1.2 Tiny and explain that it is considered
 a dead fork.  And that SVG2 is a development of 1.1.

At the moment 1.2 is only present as a sort of unacknowledged haunting
 spirit.  Poor old 1.2 :)

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by BigBadaboom
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/199#issuecomment-231847066 using 
your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 20:00:42 UTC