- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:30:10 -0800
- To: "T Rowley" <tor@cs.brown.edu>, <www-svg@w3.org>
Tim, Regarding your comment: ------------ Section 11.13 defines color values for SVG. With a small exception, this seems to duplicate the CSS2 definition of color values. Please strike the majority of this section, instead refering to CSS2 for the definition (as in 11.2) and mentioning any modifications for SVG. ------------ The current draft of SVG-t 1.2 has removed all references to CSS2 (or CSS2.1 or CSS3) in the definition of the <color> datatype and instead all definitions are fully specified within the SVG spec. This decision was made in response to previous Last Call feedback which pointed out that previous drafts were inconsistent in that there was both references to the CSS spec and inline definitions and that there were some definitional conflicts and confusions. I don't remember all of the rationale, but I do remember that there were various complexities and the SVG WG felt that the cleanest, simplest, and least confusing approach was to include the definition of <color> inline within the SVG-t 1.2 spec. There were issues about how all versions of the SVG spec (in particular, SVG-t 1.2) were built on top of CSS2.0 color facilities, and how the long-term goal was to move to referencing CSS2.1, but CSS2.1 isn't finalized yet, and some color-related features used by SVG have been dropped by CSS2.1. (I don't fully understand all of these issues - I just glanced at the member-only SVG WG meeting notes for when the "inline" decision was made: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-svg-wg/2005JulSep/0258.) One of the previous Last Call comments in this area was http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005May/0152.html: ------------ The definition of <color> in section 4.1 both refers to CSS2 and defines the values itself. Please either define the values entirely locally, or defer to CSS entirely. Currently by doing both you may introduce conflicts. ------------ The official SVG WG response to this comment was http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005Nov/0071.html: ------------ We agree, and have defined them entirely locally. Please respond shortly if this does not satisfy your comment. ------------ Perhaps others from the SVG WG will elaborate, but my guess is that the SVG WG isn't going to be too keen on flip-flopping regarding its editorial approaches. Jon
Received on Sunday, 8 January 2006 16:29:07 UTC