W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Editorial comments on SVG 1.1 and Mobile SVG Profiles Last Call WDs

From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:52:03 +1000
Message-ID: <3CA9C593.30105@w3.org>
To: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
CC: www-svg@w3.org
Masayasu-san,

Here is the SVG WG response to your last call comments.
If you disagree with our resolutions, please let us
know. Of course, you already know the outcome of most
of this but this is for the official public records.

Masayasu Ishikawa wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> The following is a list of mostly editorial Last Call comments on
> SVG 1.1 and Mobile SVG Profiles Last Call Working Drafts.  These
> comments do not represent any of the W3C Working Groups (such
> comments will be/are sent separately), just my own.
> 
> 
> Comments on SVG 1.1
> ===================
> 
> - There's a bunch of errors in the SVG 1.1 DTD, besides known
>   'xmlns:xlink' problem discussed here.
> 
>   - The attribute value for the 'version' attribute of the 'svg' element
>     is fixed to "1.0".  I think it should be changed to #REQUIRED to
>     allow values like "1.1".
> 
>     cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/struct.html#SVGElement

Accepted (Dean screwed up)


>   - The 'baseProfile' attribute is missing in the ATTLIST declaration of
>     the 'svg' element.
> 
>     cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/struct.html#SVGElement

Accepted (Dean screwed up again)


>   - Element type declarations of new elements (solidColor, div, p, span,
>     region) are all broken.  For example,
> 
>       <!ENTITY % divExt "" >
>       <!ELEMENT div (#PCDATA|region|div|p|span|animate|set|animateMotion|
>                     animateColor|animateTransform|%divExt;)* >
> 
>     should be something like
> 
>       <!ENTITY % divExt "" >
>       <!ELEMENT div (#PCDATA|region|div|p|span|animate|set|animateMotion|
>                     animateColor|animateTransform%divExt;)* >
> 
>     i.e. without "|" before %xxxExt;.
> 
>     cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/color.html#SolidColorElement
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/text.html#DivElement
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/text.html#PElement
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/text.html#SpanElement
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/text.html#RegionElement

Accepted. (Dean screwed up yet again)


>   - The element type declaration of the 'br' element is really broken.
>     By default, the current definition
> 
>       <!ENTITY % brExt "" >
>       <!ELEMENT br (%brExt;)* >
> 
>     is the same as
> 
>       <!ELEMENT br (  )* >
> 
>     which violates the element-content model constraint of XML 1.0.
>     Do you want to define it as an empty element (as in XHTML), or
>     do you want to allow some contents?
> 
>     cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/text.html#RegionElement

Accepted.
We have rewritten all of the text wrapping elements. In this particular
case, 'br' is now 'flowLine' which is similar to the proposed XHTML 2.0
'line' element. It allows content.


>   - The parameter entity %solidColorExt; is defined, but %solidExt; is
>     incorrectly referenced in the element type declaration of
>     the 'solidColor' element.
> 
>     cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/color.html#SolidColorElement

Accepted. (Did Dean screw up everything he added?)

>    - 'div' and other text-wrapping-related element are declared in
>      the DTD but according to the current definition 'div' can only
>      appear as a child of another 'div' or 'p' and nowhere else, so
>      it's not really usable. "10.18.1 Full Text Content Sets" indicates
>      that the 'div' element belongs to the 'TextElements' Content Set,
>      then the DTD needs to reflect that definition.
> 
>      cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/text.html#id5191993

As I mentioned above, 'div' has been removed/renamed. The 'div'
replacement will allow 'div' within a 'div', and also within
a parent text flow element (to make it possible to create
valid content :)


>    - And last but not least, the DTD needs to be modularized.

Accepted.


> - In "K.1 Normative references", reference to XLink should mention
>   the 27 June 2001 Recommendation version.
> 
>   cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/refs.html#ref-XLINK
> 
> - In "K.1 Normative references", reference to XPointer should mention
>   the 11 September 2001 Candidate Recommendation version.
> 
>   cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/refs.html#ref-XPTR
> 
> - In "K.2 Informative references", reference to MathML 2.0 should mention
>   the 21 February 2001 Recommendation version.
> 
>   cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/refs.html#ref-MATHML
> 
> - In "K.2 Informative references", reference to MIME types registory
>   could be <http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/> rather than
>   <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/ assignments/media-types/>.
> 
> - In "K.2 Informative references", reference to UAAG 1.0 should mention
>   the 12 September 2001 Candidate Recommendation version.
> 
>   cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/refs.html#ref-UAAG
> 
> - In "K.2 Informative references", reference to XSL 1.0 should mention
>   the 15 October 2001 Recommendation version.
> 
>   cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/refs.html#ref-XSL
>

All accepted.

> 
> Comments on Mobile SVG Profiles
> ===============================
> 
> - "Appendix B. Attribute Index" indicates that SVG Basic supports
>   'unicode-bidi' but not 'direction'.  It doesn't make sense to
>   support 'unicode-bidi' without 'direction'.  "10.19.2 Basic Text
>   Attribute Sets" of SVG 1.1 indicates that 'direction' is supported
>   in the Basic Text Module, and in "Appendix C. Style Property Index",
>   the 'direction' property is supported in SVG Basic.  Seems like
>   an oversight.
> 
>   cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVGMobile-20020215/#sec-attind
>       http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020215/text.html#id5192543
>       http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVGMobile-20020215/#sec-styind

Accepted.


> - In References section, the publication date of SVG 1.0 REC is
>   wrong.  It should be 4 September 2001, not 9 September 2001.
> 
>   cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVGMobile-20020215/#ref-svg

Accepted.

Dean
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2002 09:54:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:22 GMT