W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > May 2005

Re: [DRAFT] Review of SVG 1.2 Tiny Last Call

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:11:38 +0200
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1115712699.5631.9.camel@stratustier>
Hi Karl,

Le lundi 09 mai 2005 ŗ 18:37 -0400, Karl Dubost a ťcrit :
> this is a first pass,

Wow, that was fast! 

>  I have still do to the iCS.
> If you have comments on my comments or suggestions they are welcome.  
> SVG 1.2 Tiny Spec is HUGE!!! ;)

If I remember correctly, Lofton agreed explicitly to review your
review... In the meantime, I have a few minor comments below:

> * AWWW
> 
> [[[
> It is believed that this specification is in conformance with the Web  
> Architecture [AWWW].
> ]]] - http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/ 
> intro.html#AboutSVG
> 
> Comment:
> 1. There's no link to AWWW
> 2. It's not possible to be conformant to AWWW

Hmm... They're saying "is in conformance with", not "is conformant to",
which I understand with a different meaning. Maybe they could use a
different wording to avoid this kind of problem, e.g. "It is believed
that this specification is in accordance with the Web Architecture
principles as described in AWWW".

(FWIW, I still think it was a mistake for AWWW not to include a
conformance section, precisely for this reason...)

> * Backwards compatibility
> 
> [[[
> SVG Tiny 1.2 is a backwards compatible upgrade to SVG Tiny 1.1 .
> ]]] - http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/ 
> intro.html#defining
> 
> Comment:
> How do you define backwards compatibility?

In particular, do they address deprecation? obsolete features? Maybe you
can plug a general question on how this backwards compatibility affect
the various classes of products (viewsers/authoring
tools/interpreters...). I've seen that some of the comments below touch
on this, but maybe a more general one would be useful.

> * Referenced from CSS2

s/Referenced/Reference/

> E. QA ICS
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/qa-ics.html
> 
> Comment: Doesn't include the full ICS and new version of it. Not your  
> mistake.

Maybe you can elaborate a bit on this; you and I understand well why so,
but probably not your readers :)

>  QA WG has done it for you @@Link to the ICS@@
> 
> L. Media Type registration
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/mimereg.html
> 
> [[[
> Person & email address to contact for further information:
> Dean Jackson, (dean@w3.org).
> ]]]
> 
> Comment: it might be better to include a more reliable address for it  
> than Dean's one. maybe the mailing-list address or something like svg- 
> contact...

I think it is traditional to have the email address of an individual for
a mime-type registration, since that's an IETF process. 

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2005 08:11:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:35 UTC