Consider if XSL references can be removed

[shepazu]

SVG 1.0 used several XSL properties and property values which have since been integrated into CSS.
SVG 2 refers several times to "CSS or XSL" properties. This may make the reference to XSL unnecessary.

The sole exception may be the 'dominant-baseline' property, which doesn't yet seem to be in CSS. We should see if this is supported in implementations, and consider dropping it.

[AmeliaBR]

dominant-baseline is in CSS Inline Layout now.

If the references to XSL are purely informative ("by the way, there's another approach to styling documents which can also be used if you want...") then I see no problem leaving them. There shouldn't be any normative references, though.

[shepazu]

dominant-baseline is in CSS Inline Layout now.

Right, and that's not yet a REC. I think all of the other properties are now REC status.

But since we define 'dominant-baseline' in SVG, and don't rely on XSL, I've moved that to an informative reference.

Personally, I think it's irrelevant where 'dominant-baseline' came from, and it's potentially confusing to readers to mention it, so I'd prefer to clean up the text and remove it, but for now, I'll leave it in.

[svgeesus]

I see no need to reference XSL-FO for dominant baseline. As @AmeliaBR points out (and as the spec already says) this is defined in CSS Linebox 3.

The many references to XSL-FO, of the (imprecise) form using CSS or XSL etc could be usefully simplified to using CSS.

The references to XSL (the transformation language) are innocuous, but are already covered by xml-stylesheet for any styling language using the XML PI.