- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:45:47 +0200
- To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Saturday, September 4, 2004, 7:10:32 AM, Jim wrote: JL> "Anne van Kesteren" <fora@annevankesteren.nl> wrote in message JL> 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? JL> What other groups? If it's W3 WG's or Task Forces then I'm sure they're JL> involved - why else would it take 5 months to rename a few RCC elements? Correct. >> Starting large and ending small (the SVG profile) will probably give >> better results. JL> but be cursed with sXBL not being in SVG 1.2 unless that is horrendously JL> delayed even more to fit in with a complete XBL specification. JL> I also don't actually believe it would give better results, the more JL> ambitious W3 reccomendations have generally been the worst, early JL> implementation experience of a part is probably highly valuable. I agree there also. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Saturday, 4 September 2004 07:45:47 UTC