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

Re: SVG12: "outermost" svg element

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 00:32:03 +0200
To: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <42aaeec5.160829031@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Dean Jackson wrote:
>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.

Thanks Dean, this clarification is very helpful. I can now say that the
Working Group misunderstood my concern. By "similar wording" I referred
to not only exactly the wording "outermost" but also to similar wording
such as "root-most", "root SVG element", and "root svg".

To avoid such confusion, it would be very helpful if responses include
more information than "fixed". A good example here is for example

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2005Mar/0015

Joanne Tong notes that this is the official response from the Working
Groups, that the groups agreed to change the draft, what changes have
been made, and asks whether this resolution is acceptable. It was. It
would be very helpful if responses include all this information.

>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.

First, I am not sure there is a simple replacement term, for example
in http://www.w3.org/mid/429b4736.117934609@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de
I pointed out that referring to the the svg element instead of the
relevant view specification seems incompatible with SVG 1.1. Clearly,
this section could not use a replacement term to refer to the 'svg'
element.

Second, I've pointed out that the error processing model is unclear
http://www.w3.org/mid/41ed79b6.266453984@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de for
inline 'svg' element, they are not allowed but the draft still does
not note that the element would be ignored or that the document is
in error if it uses such elements.

So, the term "the 'svg' element" would be adequate for conforming SVG
Tiny 1.2 content but not for non-conforming SVG Tiny 1.2 content, ex-
cept perhaps if the document goes into error for such elements. I do
not know the processing here though, so "the 'svg' element" might well
be adequate.

It would probably technically sound to use "outermost" as long as
the term is well-defined, consistently used and linked to from each
occurence. "outermost" is certainly better than "root" as "root" is
typically used to refer to the document element as I've argued in
http://www.w3.org/mid/41626dfc.624164240%40smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de

>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).

I am not sure what it really refers to so any suggestion for the
definition would likely be wrong. I looked into defining it through
the "current SVG document fragment" and noted that "all elements in
the SVG language" is not well-defined (is "ev:listener" in the SVG
language?) Hopefully that can be fixed aswell.
-- 
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 Monday, 23 May 2005 22:31:18 GMT

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