RE: [xml-dev] SVG (Was: Top 10 commercial XML vocabularies?)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Thanks Andrew.  You and Robin have answered the question.

The programmer is going to face a brick wall at some point,

and the right way out without abandoning the running code

is to put in the namespaces for the extensions if they really

intend to support the customer's request to pursue a standard

(note, not a W3C standard).

 

We assume these things here, but there is a surprising

amount of people who don't get that far before they start

coding.  Caveat emptor.

 

len

From: AndrewWatt2000@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2000@aol.com]

As long as one is careful to distinguish today's actual on-the-monitor SVG implementations from features currently under development (in SVG 1.1) or semi-promised (as in the 1.2/2.0 Requirements Working Draft) then I think it is reasonable to say that SVG's feature completeness (whatever precisely that means) is well underway.

I don't think it is realistic to claim that SVG 1.0 implementations which are generally available today are actually "feature complete". But today's SVG is pretty close to the fabled 80/20 divide.

By the time SVG 2.0 arrives (in 18 or 24 months??) then we will be pretty much there. ... But, of course, we will have dreamed up more features that we really "need" by that time. :)