> This is a spec for implementers, not a tutorial for authors.
> The examples show what is intended to work if the spec were implemented,
> which is not necessarily what is implemented and ready for production use.
It is a draft about CSS properties and not about a new SVG version.
But a new SVG version is required to allow this new syntax to be used
with SVG documents.
Therefore it is obvious,. that one has to use examples that conform
to the current SVG recommendations and not to possible future ones.
Currently one has to use sprites.svg#svgView(viewBox(40,0,20,20))
and the other notation has to fail in viewers anyway for all recommended
versions of SVG, therefore the example in the CSS draft is bad, because
the new extension does currently not apply for any SVG document ;o)
Because the draft is only about new CSS properties and not about a new
SVG version, it should not use syntax, that is currently not
recommended for SVG at all - this confuses only readers of the
draft - both authors and implementors ...
If this is done, there is indeed no need to explain readers at other
places, that the example in this CSS draft should not be used for any
SVG document 'sprites.svg' that conforms to any of the current