- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 01:24:37 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
I note that ths comment never made it to the disposition of comments. I hope this oversight can be corrected. On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Chris Lilley wrote: > >> > >> then "Rattlesnake Bold". Does that result in 600 or 700 (the same face > >> covers both)? It seems that it should take 600. So for this case, the > >> computed value would be 600. > > > > No. The computed value is "one level bolder than 100". If one of the > > descendant elements (which inherits this value) has 9 font weights, then > > its "200" value will be used, not 600. > > In that case, please clarify the CSS 2.1 specification so that the > interpretation you have given naturally follows from the text, and note > this change explicitly. CSS2.1 section 2.6 already specifies this explicitly. > In the example given, 200 is assigned to a font but it is not darker > than the inherited one. Your interpretation directly contradicts the > specification. My interpretation seems consistent with the specification; I would suggest that it is in fact the SVG spec that is inconsistent. Since SVG has resolved a number of inconsistencies with other specifications -- XML Events, DOM Core, etc -- by referring to those specifications normatively instead of copying, and then changing, the definitions as was previously done, I would like to request that the SVG specification similarly simply refer to the CSS specification instead of redefining properties such as 'font-weight'. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 01:24:49 UTC