CSS 2.1 vs CSS 2

[palemieux]

TTML2 normatively references XSL 1.1, which normatively references CSS2.
TTML2 also references [CSS2] directly in the prose, which points to a normative reference to CSS2.1.

Need to clarify if each of the direct references to [CSS2] are to CCS2 or CSS2.1, and update the list of normative and informative references accordingly.

[skynavga]

There is no bug here. TTML2 references CSS2.1. TTML2 also references XSL-FO 1.1, which references CSS2. So depending on the route to the specific reference, either CSS2.1 or CSS2 applies.

[nigelmegitt]

That was my understanding also, that the references are specific to the places they come from. One oddity though is that [CSS2] is recorded as a normative reference but there does not appear to be any normative text that references it. The only section not explicitly marked as non-normative or as a Note is in §8 Styling:

In particular since [CSS2] is a subset of this model, a CSS processor may be used for the features that the models have in common.

Should [CSS2] be moved out of the normative references section and into the informative references one?

[palemieux]

In particular since [CSS2] is a subset of this model, a CSS processor may be used for the features that the models have in common.

This clearly does not apply to CSS 2.1 since, as we have seen recently, XSL 1.1 and CSS 2.1 have different handling of whitespaces.

Should [CSS2] be moved out of the normative references section and into the informative references one?

It looks like Section 10.2.7 requires CSS 2.1 even though the reference is in a note?

That was my understanding also, that the references are specific to the places they come from.

Sure. Both CSS 2 and 2.1 could be referenced.

[skynavga]

Duplicate of #302.