Q: might we consider normatively referencing CSS 2 if 2.1 is not a Recommendation?

[GoogleCodeExporter]

SVG 1.2 Tiny (2008) gets a bit cute in normatively referencing CSS 2 
specification but with "no longer maintained", "implementors may wish to refer" 
etc. really pointing at 2.1:

*****
Except for any additional SVG-specific rules explicitly mentioned in this 
specification, the normative definition of properties that are shared with CSS 
and XSL is the definition of the property from the CSS 2 specification [CSS2]. 
Note: The CSS 2 specification is no longer maintained, and implementors may 
wish to refer instead to its future replacement, CSS 2.1 [CSS21], for more 
precise details. SVG 1.2 Tiny refers to CSS 2 due to the maturity of that 
specification on the W3C Recommendation track.
*****

2.1 was a Candidate Recommendation circa Dec 2008 (since superseded by 2 
subsequent CR versions, I believe) but I don't think SVG 1.2 Tiny would have 
been able to get to full Recommendation even if it was referencing a Proposed 
Recommendation (likely the most we could hope for in our timeframe). If CSS 2.1 
stays as CR or PR then perhaps we could follow the SVG 1.2 Tiny precedent if 
need be, perhaps even excluding explicitly by list any properties that are in 
CSS2 but not CSS2.1 + our CSS3 modules (if any). This is all semantics that 
might not help implementors or interoperability but might help path to 
ISO-level standardization and W3C relations (i.e. we would not be violating "It 
is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress" which is 
on PRs as well as CRs).

Original issue reported on code.google.com by whmc...@gmail.com on 29 Oct 2010 at 4:58

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Given the current status of CSS 2.1, this no longer seems to be a relevant 
issue. Therefore, the working group chairs have decided to close it. If you 
disagree with this solution, please reopen this issue within the next 72 hours, 
and provide specific reasons why your concerns have not been addressed.

Original comment by d...@google.com on 18 Apr 2011 at 8:28

• Changed state: Invalid