- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:57:19 +0200
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>, Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Jun 1, 2009, at 12:00 , Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Marcin Hanclik:
>>> I have reviewed a few recommendations from http://www.w3.org/TR/.
>>> a) SVGT1.2 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/ says:
>>> "Future versions of this specification will maintain backwards
>>> compatibility with previous versions of the language" SVGT1.2 uses
>>> version attribute to describe the version of the standard that
>>> was used to write the SVG document. They also use "baseProfile"
>>> as a further means for content versioning/requirements in
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/single-page.html#implnote-VersionControl
>>> .
>
> Just to be clear, version="" and baseProfile="" in SVG Tiny 1.2 are
> used
> only as a hint from the content author as to what minimum version of
> the
> language is required for the content to work properly. No difference
> in processing is required for differently specified version="" and
> baseProfile="" attributes.
Furthermore, they've been known to be bad ideas for a long time, and a
non-negligible part of the community would like to see them
deprecated. I'd recommend not basing any decision on these.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 09:58:03 UTC