- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 10:21:31 -0800
- To: marc@beatware.com
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
On Jan 31, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Marc Verstaen wrote: > > Considering the number of implementations for SVG-T 1.2 already > available, I > am not this proves anything about the specs of SVG-Tiny 1.2. We are > not > talking about SVG 1.2 here... The goal is not to have just any implementations but fully interoparable implementations that meet the conformance requirements of the spec. Without a thorough test suite, there's no evidence that this is the case. And there are known ambiguities and contradictions in the latest Last Call draft. Furthermore, if the spec requires things that are contrary to other specs, it means certain classes of implementations (those that also support other specs) cannot possibly be interoperable. Therefore, rushing the spec as-is will not be an aid to interoperability. If some implementations can have de facto interoperability that is nice, but we should not lock in a spec that actually could actually harm interoperability. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 18:22:58 UTC