- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:38:16 -0500
- To: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
Hi, Mohamed- Innovimax SARL wrote (on 11/3/08 3:07 AM): > > My concern is more or less that "to be released" CSS 2.1 > implementations, would have trouble to keep in sync with SVG Tiny 1.2 > implementations since SVG is relying on CSS 2 (which has substantial > difference with 2.1). > > Probably a good thing is to identify dependency on "CSS 2 only" behavior > and to provide a evolution plan to CSS 2.1 and CSS 3 features for future > release of SVG specs Having reviewed the SVG and CSS specs, the SVG WG doesn't believe there are any significant differences in the parts of CSS 2 and CSS 2.1 that we depend upon, so a normative reference to CSS 2 should not constrain any CSS 2.1 implementation. So, it's not that we have a dependency on CSS 2 vs. CSS 2.1, but rather that we don't have a strict dependency on either one. Since the Process Document does not allow normative dependencies on specs less advanced along the Rec track, we have no choice but to reference CSS 2 until CSS 2.1 is more mature. Going forward, the SVG WG does intend to align with CSS 2.1 and CSS 3 instead, so we don't anticipate any conflicts there as well. I hope that this satisfies your comment. Please let us know immediately in either case, as we intend to make our transition call tomorrow. Regards- -Doug
Received on Monday, 3 November 2008 16:38:38 UTC