Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
The WG is in full agreement regarding this; the ContentDocs draft has been
worked on to clarify that EPUB CSS Stylesheets are not an expression of
constraints of what might occur in physical CSS files. Assigning to Matt to
point out where changes have been made (and add any additional clarifications,
if needed).
Original comment by markus.g...@gmail.com
on 11 Apr 2011 at 8:12
To recap the current spec prose:
CSS namespaces support was added in r2777 (see Section 3.3.8 in Content Docs)
Section 3.1 Content Conformance was earlier revised to state regarding EPUB
Style Sheets:
It may include constructs not explicitly identified in the EPUB 3 CSS Profile,
but should be authored so that rendering fidelity does not depend on such
additional constructs.
This statement was intended to broaden the definition so that constructs (like
SVG extensions) would not be illegal.
Section 3.2 Reading System Conformance was likewise made more liberal with the
following addition:
Reading Systems may support additional CSS constructs not explicitly identified
in the EPUB 3 CSS Profile, and must handle any unsupported constructs as
defined in [CSS2.1].
The following requirement was also recently added to Section 2.3.4 (SVG)
Reading System Conformance to flesh out SVG CSS support:
If it has an SVG Viewport, it must support the visual rendering of SVG using
CSS as defined in Section 6 of [SVG], and it should support all properties
defined in Appendix N of that specification. In the case of embedded SVG, it
must also conform to the constraints defined in Embedded SVG and CSS.
Those are the key sections in the specification currently dealing with SVG and
CSS.
Original comment by mgarrish
on 18 Apr 2011 at 11:03
Thus, there are no statements that the EPUB CSS Profile describes restrictions
on what is allowed to appear in physical CSS files. Murata, can we close this
issue, or do you want to see further clarification?
Original comment by markus.g...@gmail.com
on 20 Apr 2011 at 10:01
Closing this issue as we have had no requests for further clarification in 6
days.
Original comment by markus.g...@gmail.com
on 26 Apr 2011 at 6:59
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
eb2m...@gmail.com
on 9 Apr 2011 at 2:42