W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [SVGMobile12] color

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:30:10 -0800
Message-ID: <6ECA24BE410D994496A2AE995367C5C8576725@namail3.corp.adobe.com>
To: "T Rowley" <tor@cs.brown.edu>, <www-svg@w3.org>

Regarding your comment:

Section 11.13 defines color values for SVG.  With a small exception, 
this seems to duplicate the CSS2 definition of color values.  Please 
strike the majority of this section, instead refering to CSS2 for the 
definition (as in 11.2) and mentioning any modifications for SVG. 

The current draft of SVG-t 1.2 has removed all references to CSS2 (or
CSS2.1 or CSS3) in the definition of the <color> datatype and instead
all definitions are fully specified within the SVG spec. This decision
was made in response to previous Last Call feedback which pointed out
that previous drafts were inconsistent in that there was both references
to the CSS spec and inline definitions and that there were some
definitional conflicts and confusions. I don't remember all of the
rationale, but I do remember that there were various complexities and
the SVG WG felt that the cleanest, simplest, and least confusing
approach was to include the definition of <color> inline within the
SVG-t 1.2 spec. There were issues about how all versions of the SVG spec
(in particular, SVG-t 1.2) were built on top of CSS2.0 color facilities,
and how the long-term goal was to move to referencing CSS2.1, but CSS2.1
isn't finalized yet, and some color-related features used by SVG have
been dropped by CSS2.1. (I don't fully understand all of these issues -
I just glanced at the member-only SVG WG meeting notes for when the
"inline" decision was made:

One of the previous Last Call comments in this area was
The definition of <color> in section 4.1 both refers to CSS2 and defines

the values itself. Please either define the values entirely locally, or 
defer to CSS entirely. Currently by doing both you may introduce 

The official SVG WG response to this comment was
We agree, and have defined them entirely locally. Please respond shortly
if this does not satisfy your comment. 

Perhaps others from the SVG WG will elaborate, but my guess is that the
SVG WG isn't going to be too keen on flip-flopping regarding its
editorial approaches.

Received on Sunday, 8 January 2006 16:29:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:06 UTC