W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2001

Re:request for review of SVG 1.0

From: Robert DiBlasi <r_diblasi@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:48:30 +0000
To: Jon.Ferraiolo@adobe.com
Cc: www-svg@w3.org, dean@w3c.org, chris@w3c.org, jferraio@adobe.com, www-svg-request@w3c.org
Message-ID: <F39AJ95sZKxt8zPdqJL00008904@hotmail.com>
Jon,

Thanks for taking a look at this!....sorry  for the long message and not 
subject line....(my bad :-(

[replays within the message]


>Robert,
>Thanks for pointing out your perception of sloppy use of terminology at the 
>start of the SVG specification.
>
>I agree with one of your points but not the other two:
>
>* I disagree that there should be a hyperlink from "The feature set
>includes..." to the section in the spec that talks about feature strings
>just because the word "feature" is used in both cases.

I understand.....I thought of this too.....I made a suggestion at the bottom 
of my long note....to maybe point out the differnt features in an appendix 
or another section.....

  Feature strings are used to find out if the user agent can handle the 
features of the  SVG code the user agent is about to process....if it can't 
returns false....true other wise......

So ....yes I understand the hyperlink I choose was not the best but ....as 
for as I could see...it was the only choice I find that pointed out featuers 
in one place that had some order.....so I guess you could add a section 
/appendix to SVG 1.1 .....it would really help to point out to developers 
the great things SVG can do and how some user agents might not support all 
the features....and how to check on them .....just thinking out loud....but 
it would really be useful...not every user agent is going to support all the 
features of SVG....and it is important for developer to understand 
this....the SVG 1.1 could help to avoid confussion in this matter and point 
out to writers of SVG code this important feature (I mean that pun :-)


>* I can't see why it is better to hyperlink from the word "Animations" to 
>the section on feature strings versus going to the chapter titled 
>"Animation".
>

I understand........again the link I choose was the best I could find that 
pointed out all the features in one place in a logical order.....it would be 
helpful to have a section of appendix that pointed out the features and the 
link went to this.....but I see how this comes across :-|

>* I agree with your criticism of the word "dynamic" hyperlinking to the 
>animation chapter. It would be better to just replace the word "dynamic 
>with the words "scriptable", "interactive", "hyperlinked" and 
>"animated",and have each of these words hyperlinked to the scripting, 
>interactivity, linking and animation chapters.
>


total cool!...I understand what the spec was getting at....it just did not 
really cover all the the opinions and left the read confused if this is all 
SVG can do .....your suggestion works...nice.



>I recommend that the editorial team for SVG 1.1 review Robert's comments 
>and this response from me and consider changes in the SVG 1.1 spec.
>

I thank you for putting it up for review :-)

>Jon Ferraiolo
>SVG 1.0 Editor
>Jon.Ferraiolo@adobe.com


We all learn by sharing what we know
Robert A. DiBlasi
www.svgnotebook.com (building and building)


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2001 14:49:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:21 GMT