W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2005

Re: SVG12: "outermost" svg element

From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 00:49:31 +1000
Message-Id: <6E5A7F1C-7046-4637-9FA3-1869C0E62C90@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>


On 24/05/2005, at 12:38 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

>
> * Dean Jackson wrote:
>
>>>   From http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/types.html
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>   SVG Tiny 1.2 does not support percentage values except for the
>>>   'width' and 'height' attributes on the outermost 'svg' element.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Other parts of the draft contain similar wording. This is highly
>>> misleading as there can only be exactly one svg element in SVG
>>> Tiny 1.2 document which is the root element of the document. Please
>>> change the draft such that it does does not mislead about this fact.
>>>
>>
>> Fixed. The spec is now less misleading about this fact.
>>
>
> Dean, did the Working Group fully accept my request or partially  
> reject
> it?

Sorry for being unclear - it was meant as a semi-joke. My mistake.

We fully accepted your request. I went through the spec and
found all mention of "outermost". For each one I checked to
make sure it made sense without "outermost" (which was the case),
and then removed the term.

> "Less misleading" is not good enough and I see from other responses
> that the draft still has expressions such as "the root SVG element"  
> and
> "the root svg". Such language is misleading as I and other reviewers
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005May/0053
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005May/0139
>
> pointed out. Fixing this is not very difficult, you choose a good  
> term,
> define it well and use it consistently throughout the draft, this will
> make the draft not at all misleading instead of "less misleading".

OK. Do you think the term "root" is unacceptable? It seems pretty
good to me, and has the advantage that it will make sense in
SVG Full as well.

If you accept, we can discuss the definition next. If not, please
feel free to suggest an alternate term (and even a definition that
you would find acceptable).

Dean
Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 14:49:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:30 GMT