On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 12:56 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <rant> > No. This is supposed to be a *policy* document in a *policy* WG. We > shouldn't be getting into versions or profiles. Alexis is right. I defer to > ekr's understanding of what is or isn't policy, but the fewer words we end > up with the better. > </rant> > Well, try the follow-up: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/zQyq4w1j4tWodD_S1D3RFZreRJ4/ It just uses the definitions from SVG itself, rather than inventing our own terms in this document. They are not very specific. It does have to cite an SVG document somewhere. This one isn't too specific: https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/ The document uses in other places: https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/About but this document is from 2004, and of course contains versions right at the top (which are circa 2004...). thanks, Rob
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
