- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:17:36 +0100
- To: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com
- CC: svg-developers@yahoogroups.com, www-svg@w3.org
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, 10:14:36 AM, AndrewWatt2001 wrote: Aac> It's fascinating to compare the provisional timetable in the Aac> Charter (of May 2001 vintage) with the current timetable in the Aac> Roadmap. Has SVG 1.1, in a sense, become what was envisaged as Aac> SVG 2.0 18 months ago? No, but SVG 1.1 and 1.2 together are similar to it in effect. 1.1 does the modularization and subsetting, and 1.2 does the extra features. A 2.0 is still planned, but is further off. The number "2.0" causes many people to think of a total rewrite or a major change; I don't see that we need that. Features that are in 1.2 but turn out to be harder than expected or not to be well implemented might well get deferred to 2.0; similarly stuff for 2.0 that turns out easier than expected and gets well implemented might move forward to 1.2 -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 14:17:40 UTC