Re: referencing properties from other specs in SVG 2

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> Since we will have some substantial parts of SVG split out into other specs,
> like Filters, and various other CSS properties in other specs will be
> required, I'm wondering how we should handle definitions and links to these
> things.  Here are my current thoughts:
>
> * We remove from SVG 2 definitions of any properties that are fully
>  defined elsewhere.  For example, we don't need to re-define the
>  'direction' property in SVG.  All we need to do is to mention that
>  it applies to certain SVG elements.
>
> * For the definition of what the set of presentation attributes is,
>  and for the element summary boxes that mention them, we include
>  properties in dependent specs that SVG 2 requires.  For example,
>  the color-interpolation-filters property will be defined in the
>  Filter Effects spec, and SVG 2 will have a normative dependency
>  on Filter Effects, so color-interpolation-filters will be mentioned
>  in element summary boxes and in the list of presentation attributes.
>  If there comes to exist some specs that build upon SVG 2, which
>  SVG 2 itself does not normatively depend on (and which therefore
>  UAs can rightly implement or not), presentation attributes for
>  these properties will not be mentioned in SVG 2.  SVG 2 will however
>  have a spec hook that the other spec can reference to define
>  a presentation attribute for itself, so that it will be allowed
>  on stylable elements.

I agree with both of these.  Reference instead of redefining, but do
include them in the lists of properties that apply in whatever
context.

~TJ

Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 01:25:32 UTC