W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2009

Re: [Vector Effects] Minor correction suggestions for the currently available drafts

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:57:15 -0500
Message-ID: <4B14077B.2010107@w3.org>
To: Helder Magalhães <helder.magalhaes@gmail.com>
CC: SVG WG <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi, Helder-

Helder Magalhães wrote (on 11/30/09 9:29 AM):
>
>>  Supplying a CVS patch is clever, but that's not
>>  really how we've traditionally take comments...
>
> I'd say CVS patches are much more appropriate for this sort of
> feedback (typos, whitespace and markup issues) than providing a long
> message full of snippets (as I recall doing during the SVG 1.2 Tiny
> LC). It would be great this was formally made a way to provide
> feedback, specially when no relevant text changes are involved; I do
> agree that, whenever significant prose changes are involved, providing
> text snippets is easier to both evaluate and discuss. :-)

Look at it this way: whether you claim that the differences are 
editorial typos or not, we still have to review the changes closely to 
make sure that your CVS patch doesn't introduce any other errors, or 
accidental or deliberate changes that have not been discussed.  If we 
start accepting CVS patches, I'm afraid that a slip might occur, 
especially when we are busier.  Note also that the SVG WG has had 
problems in the past with some changes being lost because of bad CVS 
configurations.


>>   I'll leave it up to the
>>  editor, but I would personally much rather see a simple corrected document
>>  that could be easily reviewed and copy/pasted if necessary.
>
> Yes, of course the editor has a final word on the subject.
>
> If you (or the editor, naturally) prefer that I attach the changed
> HTML files (I'm not sure if that's what you meant in the first place),
> of course I'm happy with it too: it just gets a little harder to tell
> the differences (downloading + performing a diff vs. directly taking a
> look at the patch), but the procedures are more or less equivalent.

CVS patches don't fit well into my current workflow; maybe they work 
better for Chris.  I admit that they are easier for both commentors and 
editors than saying, "In section 3.4, paragraph 2, replace "fo" with 
"foo" (though saying, "remove trailing spaces between the end of 
sentences and the closing tag" or "use a spell-checker" is higher-level 
and easy to do with a text editor).  But for me, even better is a full 
document that I can visually diff with the original, and accept changes 
per item as I see fit.

For what it's worth, having reviewed your proposed patch, I would advise 
you against bothering to correct typos, trailing spaces, etc. in the 
"Status of This Document" boilerplate (those changes get blown away when 
we prepare the document for publication), or in comment blocks that will 
not make it into the final draft (marked in that spec with the class 
"editor-note").

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 17:57:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:43 GMT