- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:02:15 +0200
- To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- CC: SVG Working Group WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 10:44:26 PM, Leonard wrote: LR> Make sure for ECMAScript that you are using the proper version as LR> there were advanced in the core language that have not been adopted across all browsers/UA's I'm checking on that. LR> For the ICC spec, you should use the ISO version instead of the ICC version. LR> ISO 15076-1:2005, Image technology colour management — LR> Architecture, profile format and data structure — Part 1: Based on ICC.1:2004-10 I'm fine with adding a mention of the ISO version as well, if they are equivalent. Are they? I assume the ISO version is not available for free download? Since the ICC spec is, we should continue to refer to that. LR> It's sRGB (not the lower 's') Yup. LR> Like ECMAScript, be sure to make sure that you really want the LR> latest version of Unicode as there are changes (especially in LR> specific character codes) that may have changed but not be fully LR> supported. Also, changes to common algorithms like BiDi, etc. could also come into play. As XML 5th edition specifically links to the 'latest' version of Unicode and since the I18n Core WG refer to it also in their discussions of bidi it seems clear we should refernce the latest one, too. LR> Same with OpenType. Don't reference the latest if that isn't what folks are using... I'm checking on that one also. LR> FWIW - we specifically DON'T reference the latest versions of all LR> standard from PDF/ISO 32000-1. We have a set that are the basis LR> for standard implementations and that is what is used. I recommend the same. ISSUE-2344 ACTION-2821 -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 14:02:39 UTC