- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:47:50 -0400
- To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>
- CC: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Hi, Al- Thanks for your feedback on this. Our earlier discussion of this helped inform the SVG WG's decision, and I think we are on the same page here. I hope that the changes I made to the spec to address these comments [1][2][3] also satisfy you. Please let us know what you think. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0068.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0063.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0066.html Regards- -Doug Al Gilman wrote (on 10/10/08 3:58 PM): > > Reference: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0052.html > > ** in a word: no > > The most crisp reason is a matter of short-term > concern and language-lawyering technicalities. > > SVG 1.2 Tiny needs to progress rapidly up the rest of the > Rec track. Their implementation experience is in the bag; > this Last Call was to double check the repair of a few > substantive problems from the previous CR version. > > CURIEs are about to enter CR; they are unlikely to catch and > pass SVG 1.2T in maturity grade. So SVG 1.2T can't stand > a normative dependency on CURIEs. > > Even over the long term, SVG should probably view things > like @class and @rel/rev as derived from text/html and not > from XHTML per se. Thus the answer only gets to a 'maybe.' > > The CURIE spec itself warns against using CURIEs as the > datatype in attributes with a pre-existing practice of > plain-text token use. > > And 'no' for now is the only safe choice. > > Al >
Received on Saturday, 11 October 2008 03:47:59 UTC