Re: Why sXBL first and then XBL 2.0? from Bjoern Hoehrmann on 2004-09-09 (www-svg@w3.org from September 2004)

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:02:22 +0200
To: Jon Ferraiolo <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <414bd222.518730164@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
>* As a veteran of many W3C activities, I agree wholeheartedly that it is 
>indeed usually better to define a minimal version that addresses a 
>well-known set of needs first, and then learn from that, versus taking 
>guesses about how to solve all potential problems at once.

You mean you do not think that it should be a requirement for whatever
comes after sXBL that it is fully "backwards-compatible" with sXBL?

Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 22:03:08 UTC