W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2006

[CSS21] SVG WG comments on the 06 Nov CSS21 WD

From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:36:01 +0100
To: www-style@w3.org
Cc: "SVG WG" <w3c-svg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tj5s2bh2gqiacl@gnorps.palace.opera.no>

Hello www-style,
these are comments from the SVG WG on the CSS21 spec[1] issues.

ISSUE-79: (not using IRI:s in CSS)
Björns response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Aug/0232
SVG WG: The SVG WG will not further pursue this issue, but recommends that  
the i18n WG reviews and acts on this issue if the resolution is found  
unsatisfactory.

ISSUE-84: (dropping webfonts, @font-face)
SVG WG: No objections.

ISSUE-97: (more examples)
SVG WG: No objections.

ISSUE-98: (structure of normative text in css)
SVG WG: No objections.

ISSUE-100: (section 4.1.1)
SVG WG: We consider this issue resolved to our satisfaction.

ISSUE-103: (referencing unicode)
SVG WG: Please see [2] which states:
"C062 [S]  Since specifications in general need both a definition for  
their characters and the semantics associated with these characters,  
specifications SHOULD include a reference to the Unicode Standard, whether  
or not they include a reference to ISO/IEC 10646."

The SVG WG insists that the CSS WG follow the charmod spec[2] on on  
referencing unicode, because ISO10646 only gives you an ordering sequence,  
and doesn't give you any info about the characters.

ISSUE-104: (CSS reserves all property values and @-keywords)
SVG WG: If by this resolution the CSS WG means to retroactively make  
conforming SVG 1.1 documents with external stylesheets invalid, then we  
object. The SVG 1.0/1.1 specs were published several years ago and cannot  
be expected to change.

We need further clarification from the CSS WG on this issue, and  
suggestions for how to proceed seeing how we would like to see SVG content  
with styles stay valid.

ISSUE-105: (mapping of colors)
SVG WG: The CSS WG needs to reopen Issue 105 in order to accomodate values  
that are outside the RGB gamut but inside the gamut of the target device.  
The example "em { color: rgb(255,-10,0) } /* clipped to rgb(255,0,0) */"  
could encourage early clipping.

ISSUE-106: (referencing CSS2/2.1/3)
SVG WG: We ask the CSS WG to make sure you get permission from the  
director for referencing unpublished specs in a published spec. The  
rationale being that an unpublished spec may change, making the reference  
 from a published spec invalid.

The CSS21 draft contains this: "Implementors should look at CSS3 Lists  
instead, where these and many other new values not found in CSS1 are  
defined in detail"

In fact "should" is normative wording, and we suggest that it is changed  
to "are advised to".

The SVG WG asks the CSS WG to change all text in CSS21 that normatively  
references CSS3 so that it becomes non-normative, as per the example above.

ISSUE-107: (referencing SVG 1.0 instead of 1.1)
SVG WG: We consider this issue resolved to our satisfaction.

ISSUE-108: (page numbers in reference to SVG)
SVG WG: We consider this issue resolved to our satisfaction.

ISSUE-109: (multiple class attributes)
SVG WG: It says "Satisfied: mid:4312373E.2080804@cisra.canon.com.au", but  
no proper link is given. Also the thread link should have been #msg223,  
not #223. However the SVG WG thinks this issue is not important enough to  
pursue.

ISSUE-110: (xml:id)
SVG WG: This issue is not important enough to pursue.

ISSUE-111: (examples)
SVG WG: We consider this issue resolved to our satisfaction.

ISSUE-112: (Section 6.1.2)
SVG WG: We consider this issue resolved to our satisfaction.

ISSUE-113: (Section 6.1.3)
SVG WG: We consider this issue resolved to our satisfaction.

ISSUE-115: (Section 15.2)
SVG WG: We consider this issue resolved to our satisfaction.

Other issues:
SVG WG: The disposition of comments document is awkward to work with.  
Please use real links instead of plain text. Also, please summarize each  
issue for ease of review.

The SVG WG has not had time to review all the SVG-related CSS21 issues,  
specifically the issues 114, 116-119, 122-125 are still unreviewed. If  
possible we'd like to request an extension of the review period in order  
to review and respond to these issues.

/Erik, on behalf of the SVG WG

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-CSS21-20061106
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/#sec-RefUnicode

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 22:38:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:47 GMT