Re: SVG12: animating transform ref()

* Ola Andersson wrote:
>> >parts of the smil animation features are not trivial to capture,
>> >therefore the different behavior of implementations.
>> Thanks for pointing out the adverse relationship between unclear
>> specifications and non-interoperable implementations so clearly.
>> >Although you might find the definition confusing we believe it
>> >is correct and will leave it as is.
>> This is, therefore, not acceptable to me.
>You don't accept that we believe the spec to be correct? Whether or not
>you accept our beliefs they still remain the same. We should probably
>close this discussion before it becomes even more philosophical.  

The Working Group and its participants may believe whatever they want,
I just object to keep the requirements as difficult to capture as you
say they are. I've pointed out in detail why the requirements are not
"trivial to capture" and proposed a way to make them considerably more
"trivial to capture". The Working Group rejected my proposal claiming
that the requirements are both unclear and clear at the same time; all
that is left to do for the Working Group is to inform The Director of
my objection as required by the W3C Process.
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 ·
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 

Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 17:08:35 UTC