- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:22:28 +0200
- To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- CC: SVG Working Group WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
On Monday, July 12, 2010, 5:54:20 PM, Leonard wrote: LR> On the ICC spec - the ICC and the ISO versions are technically LR> equivalent but the ISO version uses correct/proper ISO terminology LR> and is thus a better normative reference. It's similar to the way LR> PDF 1.7 vs. ISO 32000-1 relate. So there is nothing wrong with LR> using the ICC version but the ICC recommends the ISO version. OK, thanks. LR> And I'll forgo the entire "it's not good if it's not free" discussion :). Its not whether its 'good' but whether its readilly implementable. Freely downloadable specifications make it more likely that implementors have actually read the specification. LR> ISSUE-2344 LR> ACTION-2821 -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 16:22:34 UTC