- From: Charles Lamont <charles@gateho.gotadsl.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 21:12:53 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org
On 2015-10-08 16:19, David Dailey wrote: > Beyond that, there is the relatively enormous loss of functionality > that appears likely to happen if SVG WG agrees to eliminate it from > the 15 year old standard. And then there is the diminishment of > respect for W3C as a standards body. Sigh. I suppose there is nothing to lose by pitching in to try once more to avert the wrong decision being made. If some internet browser suppliers don't want to countenance SMIL, that is their problem, we peons can just go back to the old days of 'use a better browser' messages. Heck, some even refuse to do Mathml, but that does not stop those with more sense. I agree, W3C WG's should endeavour to do the right thing, rather than the expedient, and total consensus should not be regarded as a prerequisite to a decision. There numerous working implementations of SMIL in SVG 1.1, and that should be enough to carry it forward to SVG 2. Lastly, it sometimes looks as thought SVG WG has its decisions made for it by the CSS WG. It is OK to be different. -- Charles Lamont
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2015 20:13:29 UTC