- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 05:53:47 +0200
- To: "Ola Andersson" <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>
- Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>, <w3c-svg-wg@w3.org>
* Ola Andersson wrote: >I've now improved the styling of the udom appendix. Param names are >highlighted, hyperlinks are added, return types are clearly listed, >etc. In general I've choosen to follow the styling of the svg 1.1 >DOM specification rather than the DOM3 specs since SVG1.2 readers >are likely to be familiar with the older svg specifications. I am not sure whether this satisfies me, the only acceptable formatting I've seen so far is that of DOM Level 3, the style in SVG 1.1 (and Tiny 1.2) is very poor. For SVG 1.2 "Full" in particular readers will likely have to consult the DOM specifications aswell, so while I do not mind different color schemes and thelike, I think there should not be other differences. At the very least, please make sure that all members in IDL code link to the definition of that member. Note, http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/java/classes/org/w3c/tools/specgenerator and http://www.w3.org/DOM/Group/drafts/scripts/ (member-only) were used to generate markup, the IDL code, the Java and ECMAScript bindings, etc. for the DOM specifications. It's based on an extented XMLSpec format which is widely used across working groups, there are many tools for it to generate diff, single file, PDF, etc. versions, to check for outdated references, and so on. I would suggest to switch to this XMLSpec format, it would solve a bunch of issues and generate the style I'd like to see here... Failing that, could you list the differences between DOM Level 3 and the new formatting for SVG Tiny 1.2? -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Sunday, 22 May 2005 03:53:00 UTC