- From: Craig Northway <craign@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:00:02 +0100
- To: James Bentley <James.Bentley@guideworkstv.com>, www-svg@w3.org
Hi, Please remember, as Peter has already said in this thread, all emails that come from a working group member to this list are not necessarily the working group response. If it is the official working group response I'm sure it will be stated in the email, anything else are personal opinions. I'm guessing that the official last call responses (formally addressing the issue) probably won't come until after the review period ends and we have received and reviewed all last call comments. Craig James Bentley wrote: >What is the SVG WG response to the following comment - I may have missed it. >Thanks. > >-----Original Message----- >From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of >Scooter Morris >Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:31 PM >To: www-svg@w3c.org >Subject: SVG 1.2 Comments > >" >* >*General comments* >*It is my belief that the focus of SVG should be on Scalable Vector >Graphics, regardless of the pressures put on the working group by >constuencies that are hoping to provide a broader base upon which to >build applications. In Section 5.1 of the Architecture of the World >Wide Web, it clearly states that "Orthogonal abstractions benefit from >orthogonal specifications" and that "A specification should clearly >indicate which features advance into territory rightfully governed by >another specification." " > > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 16:00:41 UTC