W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2004

Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: QA (very bad) Review

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:22:00 -0500
Message-Id: <CF2706A8-4E0D-11D9-AE12-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: www-svg@w3.org

Le 22 nov. 2004, à 15:25, Karl Dubost a écrit :
> I wanted to do a full review of SVG 1.2 [1], but I have limited my  
> analysis to the 9 ***simple*** mandatory requirements of Specification  
> Guidelines. It's one of the worse specifications it has been given me  
> to read for a while.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/11/qa-review-svg12.html

I had forgotten a few points so for the sake of the review and to help  

3.1.A: Define the terms used in the normative parts of the  
	NO. The terms are not defined anywhere. There's no glossary or  
reference to a glossary.

3.1.B: Create conformance labels for each part of the conformance model.
	NO. no conformance section, no conformance label.

3.2.A: Use a consistent style for conformance requirements and explain  
how to distinguish them.
	Same as above.
3.2.B: Indicate which conformance requirements are mandatory, which are  
recommended and which are optional.
	Same as above.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2004 00:19:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:01 UTC