- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:00:45 +0200
- To: <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
* Doug Schepers wrote: >As I said, we have sent a request for confirmation of this interpretation, >or further clarification, to the SYMM Working Group, since this does seem to >be open to interpretation. If you have further insight or a strong opinion >on this, however, we would be happy to consider it for inclusion in the SVG >Tiny 1.2 spec. I raised the issue, the suggestion that I might have raised it even though I don't actually think there is an issue that needs to be addressed through changes to the specification is very odd. I've explained what is unclear and why it is unclear. What SMIL defines is not actually relevant due to the way SVG Tiny 1.2 refers to SMIL and its own Animation chapter. -- 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 Thursday, 6 July 2006 06:00:57 UTC