- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 17:45:33 +0200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Wednesday, July 7, 2010, 5:39:42 PM, Boris wrote: BZ> On 7/7/10 8:18 AM, Chris Lilley wrote: >> Agree about the loophole, not desirable (but hard to normatively link to all future CSS specs, too. Besides, CSS might in future define some properties with optional units). >> The easy fix being s/CSS2 [CSS2]/CSS/ ? or some other fix? BZ> It seems to me that saying that properties defined by SVG but not CSS BZ> have optional units while properties defined by CSS use whatever the CSS BZ> syntax is (without referencing a particular version of CSS) would be BZ> future proof in the relevant ways... as long as there are no future name BZ> collisions, which is something I think we all agree would be bad. I agree, in particular 'whatever the CSS syntax is' because CSS might at some future date define a property that uses lenghts etc with optional units. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 15:45:37 UTC