On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Cameron McCormack <c...@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Marcin Hanclik: >> > I have reviewed a few recommendations from http://www.w3.org/TR/. >> > a) SVGT1.2 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/ says: >> > "Future versions of this specification will maintain backwards >> > compatibility with previous versions of the language" SVGT1.2 uses >> > version attribute to describe the version of the standard that >> > was used to write the SVG document. They also use "baseProfile" >> > as a further means for content versioning/requirements in >> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/single-page.html#implnote-VersionControl. > > Just to be clear, version="" and baseProfile="" in SVG Tiny 1.2 are used > only as a hint from the content author as to what minimum version of the > language is required for the content to work properly. No difference > in processing is required for differently specified version="" and > baseProfile="" attributes. >
See also the link below for a detailed discussion as to why you are suggesting in not ideal: http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/12/version_identifiers_reconsider.html -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
