W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: SVG 2 FPWD published

From: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:51:49 +0200
Message-ID: <503E1E75.8090507@telecom-paristech.fr>
To: www-svg@w3.org
Hi Jeremie,

Thanks for your feedback. Inline are some answers to your questions.

Le 8/29/2012 3:11 PM, Jeremie Patonnier a écrit :
> Hi SVG WG :)
>
> 2012/8/29 Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au <mailto:cam@mcc.id.au>>
>
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-SVG2-20120828/
>
>
> Nice to see SVG 2 FPWD out :)
>
> I know it's a very early WD but here are some small quick thought 
> about it:
>
>   * Section 1.6
>     I'm looking forward for the definition of "lacuna value" but I'm
>     not sure it is quite différente than "default value" which seams a
>     bit more easier to understand.
>
The definition is here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/intro.html#TermLacunaValue
We forgot to port it over. It will be done in the next version.

>   * Section 2.3
>     It is stated that SVG can be embedded in an HTML page using the
>     img element or throught CSS. Is their a normative reference
>     somewhere that define the limit of SVG embedded that way? For
>     exemple, Firefox does not allow scripts or external ressources in
>     such cases. If this normative reference exist it would be nice to
>     have a link to it. If it does not exist, it worth considering
>     writing it in order to help implementor to define common behaviors.
>   * Section 4.4
>     Maybe it would be worth considering to reference css3-color
>     instead of having the list of color keywords.
>     Maybe this should be part of chapter 12.
>   * Section 5.7
>     Maybe it miss an annotation about
>     http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG2_Requirements_Input#.3Cuse.3E_cleanup
>     ?
>   * Section 23
>     Maybe it miss an annotation about
>     http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG2_Requirements_Input#Extensibility
>     ?
>
Note that we indeed did not add annotations for the all the requirements 
that were agreed. This is is because we have limited manpower and we've 
received commitments from people within the WG to work only on some of 
the requirements. The idea is to focus our work on the requirements for 
which we have commitments and then if time permits, when the work is 
done (spec, tests ...) for these, we'll pick new work items from the 
remaining unaddressed requirements.

Cyril


-- 
Cyril Concolato
Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
Telecom ParisTech
46 rue Barrault
75 013 Paris, France
http://concolato.wp.mines-telecom.fr/
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 13:52:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:52 GMT