W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: References in SVG 1.1 Second Edition

From: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 18:36:23 +0200
Message-ID: <49FF1987.9080907@enst.fr>
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Hi all, Cameron,

I have made a similar work to understand the differences between 1.1 and 1.2. I attach the result of my work (PDF), I hope this can help. I can modify it if you want. You can find my comments below.

 Cameron McCormack a écrit :
> Hello WG!
> 
> I’m wondering whether certain references in SVG 1.1 Second Edition
> should be updated to the latest corresponding spec.  The following are
> informative references to non-latest version specs that I think we could
> bump up without harm, especially the ones which weren’t RECs at the
> time:
> 
> Charmod 1.0
>   WD 30 Apr 2002       to  1.0 “Fundamentals”, REC 15 Feb 2005
> MathML 2.0
>   REC 21 Feb 2001      to  2.0 Second Edition, REC 21 Oct 2003
> RDF Syntax
>   REC 22 Feb 1999      to  RDF Primer, REC 10 Feb 2004
> RDFS
>   CR 27 Mar 2000       to  REC 10 Feb 2004
> XHTML 1.0
>   REC 26 Jan 2000      to  Second Edition, REC 1 August 2002
> 
> There are mentions in the spec of how you should follow WCAG, and how
> you can use XSLT.  We could add references to WCAG2 and XSLT2 here, just
> as we did in 1.2T.  Again, these are informative, so it would just be if
> we want to acknowledge the newer specs.
I agree that adding informative references don't harm.

> 
> Now, for the normative references.  These are the ones that have newer
> versions:
> 
> DOM 2 Core
>   REC 13 Nov 2000      to  DOM 3 Core, REC 7 Apr 2004
> 
>   I don’t think we should do this one.
I agree with you.

> 
> PNG
>   REC 1 Oct 1996       to  Second Edition, REC 10 Nov 2003
> 
>   Errata and clarifications.  1.2T references this.
> 
> URI
>   RFC 2396 Aug 1998    to  RFC 3986, Jan 2005
> 
>   Incorporates RFC 2372 (IPv6 literals), which 1.1 already references
>   separately.  Various bug fixes and clarifications.  1.2T references
>   this.
> 
> Language Tags
>   RFC 3066 Jan 2001    to  BCP 47 (RFC 4646 & 4647), Sep 2006
> 
>   Allows more flexible language tags, like zh-TW-Hant.  Defines language
>   tag matching.  1.2T references this.
> 
> UTF-8
>   RFC 2279 Jan 1998    to  RFC 3629, Nov 2003
> 
>   Stricter on allowing only code points 0000-10FFFF to be encoded.
>   Stricter on decoding invalid UTF-8.  1.2T references this.
> 
> UNICODE
>   3.2 2000             to  5.1, 2007
> 
>   The only practical difference would be changes to the Unicode bidi
>   algorithm (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/#Modifications).
>   1.2T references Unicode 4.1.
> 
> XML 1.0 Second Edition
>   REC 6 Oct 2000       to  Fifth Edition, REC 26 Nov 2008
> 
>   Forwards-compatible handling of XML 1.1 documents (which nobody uses
>   anyway), allowing more characters in XML names, various
>   clarifications.  1.2T references the Fourth Edition.
> 
> XML Base
>   REC 27 June 2001     to  Second Edition, REC 28 Jan 2009
> 
>   Clarifications.  1.2T references the First Edition.
> 
> Namespaces in XML
>   REC 14 Jan 1999      to  Second Edition, 17 Aug 2006
> 
>   Clarifications and bug fixes.  1.2T references this.
> 
> XSL 1.0
>   REC 15 Oct 2001      to  1.1, REC 6 Dec 2006
> 
>   The only thing SVG 1.1 depends normatively on XSL for is the
>   definition of font baselines in the Text chapter.  That text hasn’t
>   changed from XSL 1.0 to 1.1, so there’d be no practical change from
>   updating the reference.  1.2T references this.
> 
> Other W3C specifications take the opportunity of a subsequent edition to
> bump references like these, so I think we should if there’s no downside.
There may be normative specs that can be updated but I don't know them well enough. In general, I'm not sure this is a good idea to update normative references, especially if they were explicitely dated references. Newer versions might have newer conformance claims which could make old players non conformant to the new edition. 

My 2 cents,

Cyril

> 
> BTW I don’t think we should add a reference to XML 1.1. :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cameron
> 


-- 
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 Monday, 4 May 2009 16:36:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 May 2009 16:36:57 GMT