Re: SVG Linking Test Case Questions

Chris Lilley wrote:
> Right. HTML 4.0 spec is very poorly worded in this respect


> JS>  and
> JS> certain folks would be a little happier with the SVG 1.2 spec.  There
> JS> would be no incompatiblity for HTML UAs,
> There isn't. That meme grew from some folks misunderstanding "we took
> the wording from WebCGM" to mean "we don't care about HTML"

No, "that meme" grew from the "clarifications" received from the SVG 
working group members when the question of what the SVG spec was 
actually saying was raised on the SVG mailing list.

The problem wasn't the wording per se (which was just unclear, which is 
par for the course in specs), but the way the initial responses to the 
clarification request clarified the wording.

> In fact that was cleared up on list (by Sjoerd among others)

Was Sjoerd speaking for the SVG working group?  I don't seem to recall 
ever seeing an official SVG Working Group response to the issue.

Basically, it sounds like we all agree about how this should work and we 
just need to make sure the specs say what we agree on (so people don't 
have to go to the mailing list archives and look at the confusing 


Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 22:10:41 UTC