W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2005

Re: [SVGMobile12] "6.7 Property inheritance"

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:26:14 +0100
Message-ID: <832376354.20051108192614@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

On Tuesday, November 8, 2005, 6:57:45 PM, Ian wrote:

IH> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> 
>> IH> * Each property should define its own computed value, in the style of the
>> IH> "Computed Value:" line found in CSS specifications.
>> 
>> We agree, have reviewed all the property definitions, and ensured that
>> they all define their computed values.
>> 
>> Please let us know shortly if this comment does not satisfy the comments 
>> you made above.

IH> I would like to review what the actual computed value lines you used were,
IH> in the context of the spec as it has been edited. It would satisfy my 
IH> comments if you publish another (LC)WD draft.

Noted.

>> IH> * The links are to an obsolete version of CSS2; CSS2 has sinced been 
>> IH> revised. CSS2 revision 1 has many old errors corrected. CSS2.1 is at the
>> IH> same stage as CSS2.0 in the REC track -- namely, the stage after last call
>> IH> (note that CSS2.0 never exit the then-equivalent of CR since it was 
>> IH> published before the formal CR process was established).
>> 
>> We are unable to believe that a Working Draft is the same level of 
>> maturity as a W3C Recommendation.

IH> CSS2 is a spec that never exit CR,

Naturally, in the same way that you have not yet passed your flying
saucer pilot exam.

IH> and has hundreds of outstanding comments, including serious errata.

Hence the last call comment asking for clarity about its fate.

IH> Treating it as "mature" is probably not the best way of looking at
IH> it.

Making up your own maturity levels is probably not the best way either.

IH> But if you want your spec to depend on that instead of the revision
IH> of that spec that's had all the errors fixed, I guess that's your
IH> choice...

As you are aware, CSS 2.1 removes items that the XSL and SVG
specifications depend on, on the grounds that the HTML+CSS
implementations do not use them. This makes referring to CSS 2.1
problematic, and the applicability of CSS 2.1 unclear.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 18:26:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:32 GMT