W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: SVG 1.2 meta feedback

From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:32:57 +1000
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030604033257.GE10057@grorg.org>

On Mon, 12 May 2003, Jim Ley wrote:

> Thank you for publishing the spec, many areas are very well specified and
> are a considerable development from the previous draft, congratulations on
> the extensive work the working group has obviously done since then.

Thanks. One problem we have at the moment is that we develop quicker
than we can get specs out. This isn't a good thing :)

However, it makes life interesting, and the SVG working group is more
active now than it has been for a long time.

> On the explicitly requested feedback:
> 
> I find XML Schema pretty unreadable so would welcome alternatives, 

A normative RelaxNG schema is under discussion.
(and just before the flame war starts again, I'll reiterate: there
will be a normative W3C XML Schema).

> and don't see the inline snippets clarifying anything in the specification, 

Really? I do.

One option is to follow what the XHTML 2 draft has done, and use
schema-language independant descriptions in the spec, with links
to the schema(s).

> links to
> the schema document (which as it's XML can presumably take xpointer fragment
> links) would I'd've thought be sufficient and not overly clutter the spec.

We'll see. The goal of course is to provide the most usable spec possible
(given an 800 page document which assumes a *lot* of background).

> This will also make maintenance easier ensuring there aren't discrepencies
> I'd've thought.

We're looking at something like what you suggest.

>  (if you do include is there really any value in including
> the xs:  to me that just increases the confusion of the snippets)

Yeah, but then we have to include the svg:, right?

> My initial readings of flowText and RAX are positive, but I've not read
> these more detailed portions of the spec fully enough to have detailed
> comments, unlike the other portions.

The flowText section needs more examples and a better description.
It has evolved piecemeal over the past year.

The RAX section was more informative than declarative. The next
draft will include syntax. Maybe we should post a teaser example?

The WWW2003 attendees saw it on screen, but it is not in the
online version. Also, you needed a unnamed, unreleased SVG viewer
to display the resulting SVG.

Dean
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2003 23:33:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:25 GMT