- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 06:10:32 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org
"Anne van Kesteren" <fora@annevankesteren.nl> wrote in message news:41386DE5.2050606@annevankesteren.nl... >>> Anything that will be defined here as sXBL will certainly also be in the >>> more general XBL 2.0? >> >> Yes - its to be a strict superset. > > If it will be a strict superset, don't the other groups have to agree on > what you have created now? What other groups? If it's W3 WG's or Task Forces then I'm sure they're involved - why else would it take 5 months to rename a few RCC elements? > Starting large and ending small (the SVG profile) will probably give > better results. but be cursed with sXBL not being in SVG 1.2 unless that is horrendously delayed even more to fit in with a complete XBL specification. I also don't actually believe it would give better results, the more ambitious W3 reccomendations have generally been the worst, early implementation experience of a part is probably highly valuable. Jim.
Received on Saturday, 4 September 2004 07:04:48 UTC