Reference SVG1.1 instead of SVG Tiny 1.2

[sideshowbarker]

Facts about the SVG Tiny 1.2 spec (Recommendation):

• last published/updated in 2008
• last time anything was added to the errata for it was 2009
• has never been an accurate reflection of what SVG features are implemented in browsers

Facts about the SVG 1.1 spec (also a Recommendation):

• last published in 2011
• last time anything was added to the errata for it was 2014
• the more accurate (vs Tiny 1.2) documentation of SVG features that browsers actually implement

[annevk]

What about the reference embedded in the document itself? We should just leave that reference 1.2 for the time being?

[sideshowbarker]

What about the reference embedded in the document itself? We should just leave that reference 1.2 for the time being?

Yeah, that’s what I was thinking at least. The thing is, there are no statements of normative UA requirements in the SVG11 spec for processing of scripts—there is no equivalent in the SVG11 spec for this https://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/script.html#ScriptContentProcessing section.

So I think we should leave it in there but still change the other “main” reference (used all places in the spec other than this) to be a reference to the SVG11 spec (as proposed in this PR).