- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:56:13 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Monday, April 18, 2005, 12:59:08 AM, Bjoern wrote: BH> Dear Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group, BH> From BH> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/painting.html BH> [...] BH> <color> is the explicit color (in the sRGB [SRGB] color space) to be BH> used to paint the current object. SVG supports all of the syntax BH> alternatives for <color> defined in [CSS2-color-types] including the BH> list of recognized color keywords names. BH> [...] BH> I assume that this reference to CSS 2.0 rather than CSS 2.1 is an BH> error and CSS 2.1 is meant to be referenced. No, CSS 2.0 is referenced. BH> If that's the case the statement BH> is incorrect as CSS 2.1 support the color keyword "orange" but not SVG BH> Tiny 1.2 apparently does not. Please change the draft to refer to CSS BH> 2.1 and either require support for the "orange" keyword or fix this then BH> incorrect statement. Or, indeed, leave it as CSS 2.0 which does not have orange and neither does SVG Tiny 1.2. So its already consistent. You seem to be asking for a change which would make it inconsistent, and then complaining about the inconsistency this would cause. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Monday, 18 April 2005 20:56:22 UTC