* David Megginson wrote:
>I don't agree with every single word in the position paper, but it is 
>refreshingly pragmatic, recommending that we build on what we already have 
>and know (HTML forms, JavaScript, DOM, and CSS) instead of trying to rip 
>everything up and start over again.  I find myself liking an awful lot of 
>the paper, such as this statement:
>
>   If a specification is so large that it requires profiling and/or cannot be
>   implemented on small devices, then it is a failing of the specification
>   that should be solved by editing the complete spec, possibly simplifying
>   or obsoleting some parts.

Is that because you find it amusing, or because it makes you feel good
in some sense without any practical relevance or do you actually agree
with the statement? If you agree with it, could you explain the
implications for e.g. SVG? It seems that this means that there should
not be any SVG beyond SVG Tiny or that SVG Tiny (or Basic or whatever)
should have never been created and we should only have SVG "Full".
It seems to me that neither option would contribute to the success of
SVG, so the argument is either flawed or I miss a third option that
would actually make sense.