- From: Andrew Shellshear <Andrew.Shellshear@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:55:25 +1100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
>The SVG Tiny 1.2 specification is quite hard to read, mostly because of
>grammatical errors and poor English. For instance, in section 11.5 one
>finds the following sentent:
>
^ funny!
> "Normally stroking involves calculating
>stroke outline of the shape's path in current user space and filling that
>outline with the stroke paint (color or gradient)."
>
I don't think it's *that* bad. Can you suggest an alternative, please?
> As others have pointed
>out, there are also a large number of typos.
>
>
There were certainly a couple of typos, but I didn't think there were
very many.
Did you catch any others?
>As a W3C member it is quite embarrassing to see such text in a last call
>draft.
>
>Please conduct a thorough proof-reading of the specification to correct
>the grammar and any typos.
>
>
We've already done so, and we're sorry we missed a couple. However, I
don't think the typos and grammar mistakes quoted so far are unusual for
a document of this size and nature, and I don't think it's an embarrassment.
Andrew.
Received on Friday, 30 December 2005 06:55:34 UTC