- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:03:36 -0400
- To: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- CC: SVG Working Group WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Hi, Erik- Erik Dahlstrom wrote (on 7/9/10 5:00 AM): > > You are aware that this goes against what is specified in SVG Tiny 1.2 > [1]? Your fallback content wouldn't be rendered by SVG Tiny 1.2 > compliant engines. Ah, that's too bad. Do you recall the rationale for doing it that way? If it's just an arbitrary decision, then maybe we could reopen that? I do think that this is a potentially very useful behavior. > In short, I disagree with the proposal to render child elements of > unknown elements. However I wouldn't mind if we adopted the wording in > [1] to SVG 1.1F2 to further clarify handling of unknown > attributes/elements. We should certainly clarify one way or the other. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Sunday, 11 July 2010 08:03:38 UTC