W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: ISSUE-2147 (external-refs confusing): Section on externally referenced documents confusing [Last Call: SVG 1.2 Tiny]

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:52:14 +1100
To: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
Cc: cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, SVG Working Group <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20081031105214.GC12914@arc.mcc.id.au>

Hi Erik, Cyril.

Cameron McCormack:
> > > A resource document is a document that has been loaded because it is
> > > referenced as a resource by an SVG document fragment.

Cyril Concolato:
> > It should say here "because parts of it are referenced as resources"
> > as opposed to "presented in whole" in the above definition. Similar
> > wording would be good as well.

Erik Dahlström:
> Could you clarify?
> 
> You want to change:
> "A resource document is a document that has been loaded because it is
> referenced as a resource by an SVG document fragment."
>
> to:
> "A resource document is a document that has been loaded because parts
> of it are referenced as a resource by an SVG document fragment."
>
> Correct? I would agree with such a rewording, since resources are
> always parts of a document.

Yes I think change is fine too, and I’ve just committed that.

> > > References to any other kinds of document, such as media or external
> > > scripts, are not classified as primary or resource documents. Multiple
> > > references to media at a particular IRI always result in separate
> > > timelines being created.
> >
> > This last part is also fine but you have a sentence explaining
> > the behavior for media. You should explicitely say what happens for
> > script. It may use a reference to HTML if you think it's better.
>
> I don't think this section is appropriate for such definitions. We
> have a scripting chapter, which we could link to. Does section 15.2.1
> "Script Processing" not describe the processing well enough? I think
> it's rather clear from that section that if you have two separate
> script elements they will execute once each, even if the referenced
> script is the same IRI (and I can't help but wonder if this is really
> such a large issue, since IMHO it doesn't provide an author much value
> in running the same script snippet twice anyway). I'd guess that if
> you find this type of content then it's most likely an authoring
> mistake.

I agree with Erik that I don’t think it’s necessary to say anything more
about scripting here beyond what already is.

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 10:53:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 31 October 2008 10:53:12 GMT