Re: Another draft of SVG book: Draft 2.0

Hi, David-

I've uploaded the newest draft of the book to the W3C server (changing 
its name to reflect the new title):
   http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/IG/resources/svgprimer.html

I spent a considerable amount of time (a few hours) cleaning up the HTML 
code to make it well-formed and valid (which is why it took me so long 
to upload it).  I really hope we can avoid that in the future.  I know 
you originally wrote the book in a text editor (MS Word?), but hopefully 
someone out there can recommend an HTML-output editor that won't butcher 
the code.  Any suggestions?

A lot of the problems revolved around blocks of code, tables (often with 
annotated code), block quotations, <pre> blocks, and styling.

I think we can avoid most of those problems by coming up with a cleaner 
way to handle the content that is now in tables.  Most of that is not 
actually tabular data, but is being used for layout and positioning. 
The annotations in particular could be handled by CSS much more nicely.

I would also like to see SVG rather than rasters wherever possible.

But perhaps more important than any of this is that we need to move this 
forward soon.  Browsers are changing rapidly, and I think that if we 
don't publish soon, much of this will be stale.  As it is, we will need 
to publish updates fairly quickly on its heels.

Maybe we should set up a telcon to discuss next steps, and we could each 
take a section to review?

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

Dailey, David P. wrote (on 4/29/09 2:05 PM):
>
>
> Here is the next version of the SVG Book.
>
> http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/cs427/StateOfArt-Dailey.html
> (same address as before, just better stuff!)
>
> We’ll call it Draft number 2.
>
> I suspect Doug will be moving it to W3C in short order, but if you see
> any glaring problems of an immediate nature, please holler and we can
> make quick corrections (btw – Doug, I made two small corrections since
> the version I sent you, so will be sending a new one today or tomorrow).
>
> I like the idea of moving it into a version control system and am happy
> with what folks have said about Subversion, but won’t be able to go
> there for a few weeks in terms of my schedule. Doug and I will also be
> talking about the nature of the shared copyright and what that means in
> terms of “W3C Document” status.
>
> In the meantime, there is a new and somewhat stable version for folks to
> respond to, so I guess until we have a versioning system set up, the
> following makes sense??
>
> 1. Wait until then to do any thorough reviews, to avoid duplication of
> effort
>
> 2. Sign up for review of any particular section that you think needs
> immediate attention
>
> 3. Sign up for writing any section that appears to be a priority (e.g.
> using CSS in SVG)
>
> 4. E-mail me with any egregious or small mistakes that need to be
> corrected soon.
>
> If someone points out something that I plain disagree with, then here’s
> what makes sense as a temporary sort of editorial policy:
>
> 1. If the disagreement is pedagogical or literary, then I will encourage
> you to write your own book – someone has to make these decisions!
> (seriously, though, I will try to listen despite the toll that my 107
> years of teaching may have taken on my open-mindedness)
>
> 2. If the disagreement is of a technical nature, then if I can’t
> persuade myself that you are right (even though you probably are) then
> I’ll defer the question back to this group as a whole. If a majority of
> you tell me I’m all wet then I will pout but will probably listen to you
> ( though I can imagine writing something to the effect that “everyone
> but Dailey believes X” to save face)
>
> To get some idea of my editorial style, see the way I handled the issue
> of <embed> & <object> & <iframe>. In
> http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/cs427/StateOfArt-Dailey.html#SVG_in_HTML
> (actually, I’m not sure that there was any real disagreement here, since
> the last discussions we had here seemed to allow my conclusion that
> <embed> wasn’t so bad after all. And we still aren’t sure, I think, if
> <object><param></object> exposes folks to any of those nasties that
> Adobe warned about with disabling script in <object> through ASV.)
>
> Have fun!
>
> David
>

Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 03:09:28 UTC