- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 00:57:57 +0000 (UTC)
- To: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
- cc: 'Brian Birtles' <bbirtles@mozilla.com>, www-svg@w3.org, 'Jonas Sicking' <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011, David Dailey wrote: > > It seems to me that if the SVG Working Group were to try to withdraw W3C > recommendations, such as SMIL animation and SVG fonts, that are now > several years out of the barn, then objections will quite naturally be > filed at the most formal of possible levels, barring fancy procedural > footwork to prevent such objections from being heard. What I'm interested in isn't so much what the specs will say, so much as what the browsers intend to implement. It's certainly not unheard-of for browsers to drop features, even after they are quite widely implemented. > I suppose if you want tests that everyone passes then dropping hard > tests makes sense. This isn't about whether the tests are hard or not, it's about whether the tests test things that the browser vendors intend to keep implementing. > However, dropping support for the hard parts of SVG because vendors > don't like them, in the long run, I think, weakens the W3C's > credibility. That isn't really my concern. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2011 00:59:59 UTC