- From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:27:12 +0100
- To: "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi, Bjoern- Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: | | * Doug Schepers wrote: | >We agree that this is a serious issue, and since it is | outside the scope of | >the SVG WG to define this behavior, we will coordinate with | the SYMM WG to | >address these and related issues. In the meantime, this | should not affect | >the ability to conformantly implement SVGTiny1.2, since we | normatively refer | >to SMIL2.1 for this range of behaviors, and any changes to | SMIL will only be | >relevant to later SVG Specifications. | | Are you saying the SVG Working Group is going to change the draft such | that behavior would be implementation-defined regardless of | what future normative corrections to the SMIL 2.1 Recommendation might require? No. | If not, I'm not sure why such a normative correction would not | be relevant | to SVG Tiny 1.2, and if, I am not sure whether contradicting the SMIL | specification would be acceptable in this case. We aren't going to make any conformance requirements on this point at all. Regards- Doug doug.schepers@vectoreal.com www.vectoreal.com ...for scalable solutions.
Received on Saturday, 4 March 2006 16:27:19 UTC