W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: [1.2T-LC] title and desc example 'title-desc-tooltip.svg' (ISSUE-2060)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:30:05 -0400
Message-ID: <48D6F51D.2020009@w3.org>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
CC: www-svg@w3.org

Hi, Dr. Olaf-

Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote (on 9/18/08 1:54 PM):
> Hello SVG WG,
> 
> in the section 5.5.3 there is an example
> title-desc-tooltip.svg; I have some suggestions
> to improve this.
> 
> - maybe more useful to use version 1.2 and the
>   tiny profile and not version 1.1, because the
>   draft ist about SVGT 1.2 and SVG 1.1 has no
>   role attribute

Thanks for noticing that.  I've updated the version info.

Going forward, I'd like the SVG WG to consider adding the @role to SVG
1.1 in an errata, since at least one or two implementations (Opera and
FF) already have it.  But that's another matter, and adding features in
an errata is sketchy.


> - if this is modified to an SVGT 1.2 example,
>   it is useful too to use xml:id instead of id
>   as suggested in the related section about
>   id and xml:id 

Since both are allowed, I chose to leave this as @id.  (Part of my
reasoning was that if people are using @role in one of the existing
implementations, and since FF doesn't support @xml:id, I would rather
not confuse the issue by conflating this with @role.)


> - looking at the points list of #beeCell
>   I came to the conclusion, that it is not a regular
>   hexagon 

If you would be so kind as to make a true regular hexagon of similar
dimensions, I'd be happy to change the example to use that instead.  Of
course, if SVG had some sort of <polar> element, that would make it much
easier to construct any regular polygon.


> (what is of course no problem, one cannot assume, that 
> a bee cell is really a regular hexagon), 

On the contrary, it's a little-known fact that bees always make perfect
hexagons for their honeycombs, but they have a far more profound and
advanced geometry than humans.  This also accounts for the seemingly
irregular shape of each cell in a beehive, which adheres to a higher
mathematics than we have yet discovered.


>   but then I do not understand the
>   content of the meta element. 
>   Ok, the hexagon still has some symmetries, but
>   four parameter are not sufficient to describe the
>   hexagon (for a regular hexagon, four would be
>   enough: center x,y, here 0,0, radius for corners,
>   angle for one corner). Therefore without further
>   explanation or reference to a specific namespace
>   for hexagons it is not obvious, what the content
>   of metadata could mean. Because there are 
>   not may samples for the use of metadata, it is
>   useful to have it, but the relation to the parent
>   element should be simpler to identify to have 
>   some profit from this part of the example.

Oops.  That <metadata> element was an leftover artifact from when I was
making the hexagon, and wasn't meant to be part of the example.  I've
removed it.  Sorry about that.


> - could be helpful to have somewhere an
>   informative section including some more
>   samples with short explanations for the content 
>   of role. 
>   I think, currently for a reader without 
>   a predisposition something like role="aria:tooltip"
>   is not obvious, how this is constructed.
>   For example in the referenced wai-aria document
>   this is indicated as  'Role: tooltip'

I agree that some more examples would help, including simpler ones with
annotations, raster screencaps, and explanations, and I'm happy to work
on that.


> Additional side note:
> Many examples in the draft have no title element,
> but the chapter about title and desc notes:
> "Authors should always provide at least a 'title', and preferably a 'desc', as 
> an immediate child element to the 'svg' element within an SVG document."
> 
> Well, if the examples in the draft have any educational functionality,
> indeed, draft authors too should at least provide a title for the svg
> element, if it is a complete sample and not just a document fragment 
> or should add some '...' to indicate, that it is only a fragment ;o)
> 
> Or does this mean: "Authors should always provide at least a 'title' OR 
> primarily a 'desc' ...", because many samples have a 'desc' but no
> 'title'?

Most examples already in the spec were using the older, less-defined
descriptions of <title> and <desc>, but the SVG WG will consider
changing them as we have time.  I did remove those examples that seemed
to contradict the new text-only content model of <title> and <desc>, and
if you see any others, I'm happy to change those as well.

However, the other examples in the spec are typically minimalistic, to
illustrate a different point, so it's not clear that they need to be as
rigorous as the ones that exemplify <title> and <desc>.  For the next
version of the spec, we will take care to be more consistent in our
examples.

The SVG WG will discuss whether we can update the examples in the time
we have allotted.  If this is satisfactory to you, please do let us know
promptly.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 01:30:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:40 GMT