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: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:13:54 +0100
Message-ID: <490AE872.60300@enst.fr>
To: SVG Working Group <public-svg-wg@w3.org>

Hi Cameron, Erik,

Cameron McCormack a écrit :
> 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.
Thank you, that's what I meant. I wasn't clear in my comment.

> 
>>>> 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.
I understand and my initial comment is satisfied. Thank you.

Cyril


-- 
Cyril Concolato
Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
Groupe Mutimedia/Multimedia Group
Département Traitement du Signal et Images
/Dept. Signal and Image Processing
Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications
46 rue Barrault
75 013 Paris, France
http://tsi.enst.fr/~concolat 
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 11:14:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 31 October 2008 11:14:18 GMT