Re: SVG12: <handler>, etc. vs <handler>, etc.

* Chris Lilley wrote:
>In which case, you should feel free to use your Invited Expert status in
>the expired CSS WG, which gives you Member access, to post such details
>to the SVG WG list.

I posted a note to the effect that that doesn't help much.

>I wasn't aware that you were speaking officially for the CDF and HTML
>Working Groups.

Yes, that's probably because I didn't say or imply that in any way.
Please note that I think it's bad practise to assume that someone
speaks on behalf of some other entity and would encourage the SVG
Working Group to neither do that nor to require reviewers to assume
it. It's unfortunately common that responses meant to formally
address comments don't indicate that the response is the official
response as opposed to some Working Group participant's own opinion
or just some preliminary response meant to keep reviewers up to date.

For http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Feb/0019 I don't
know for example whether I should register formal objection to the
response as it's technically incorrect with respect to XLink 1.1 and
SVG Tiny 1.2 beeing compatible, or whether I should wait with that
until the SVG Working Group completes research regarding the issues
I raised as you indicated the Working Group is going to perform.

I would recommend to assume people speak only for themselves unless
they clearly state something else, and clearly state in responses
that they are official and preliminary as appropriate. This would
ensure that people don't feel it might be necessary to state they
don't speak for some other entity.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Sunday, 5 February 2006 11:51:15 UTC