Re: Part 3 (was Re: Working through DUV parts 1 & 2)

Hi Phil,

Thanks so much for offering to fix the picture, I'm wondering if it would
be easier just to export to an image format?  We are currently using the
draw.io [1] tool which makes remote collaboration a bit easier between
Berna and myself, but appears to be problematic for publication.

What do you think?

Eric S
Reference [1]
https://support.draw.io/questions/1671290/why-does-the-text-of-svg-export-sometimes-not-display-correctly-in-ie-and-some-svg-editors




On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> Morning Eric,
>
> I've created a Pull Request that includes the fixes mentioned yesterday.
>
> We have a problem though I'm afraid. I looked at the SVG to see if I can
> make it clickable and, in the process, found that it uses some advanced
> features of SVG that are not supported by some browsers that we need to
> care about, at least a little, by which I mean IE11. So we need a new
> version of the diagram. I can create it (it's a bit of Friday coding for
> me) and I can do it in time for a Tuesday publication but I won't have it
> done before today's call.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> On 14/01/2016 20:23, Phil Archer wrote:
>
>> And is this Note still relevant?
>>
>> "Based on discussions held June-August the model has been modified
>> significantly The non-normative text below needs updating once general
>> agreement is reached on the DUV model."
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14/01/2016 20:10, Phil Archer wrote:
>>
>>> Eric, Sumit, Berna,
>>>
>>> I have an idea this won't be the only question I have for you about DUV
>>> but I'm working through it and I'll jot down some observations and
>>> questions as I go.
>>>
>>> First of all, I've fixed the ReSpec errors so my copy is now OK on that
>>> score [1].
>>>
>>> Secondly, in the Status section, the text says "This is a draft document
>>> which may be merged into another document or eventually make its way
>>> into being a standalone Working Draft." is that still true? I may be
>>> wrong but my impression is that the WG finds it easier to keep DUV and
>>> DQV separate.
>>>
>>> The Status section needs to have at least one custom paragraph, i.e.
>>> some indication of what *this* version is about, it's stability etc.
>>> *If* the following is accurate, then something like:
>>>
>>> "This is the second iteration of the vocabulary, developed following
>>> extensive consultation among and outside the working group who now
>>> regard it as nearing completion. Comment and feedback is sought before
>>> the next iteration which is likely to be the final version for the
>>> foreseeable future."
>>>
>>> would be appropriate.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping to add links to your SVG next...
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> [1] http://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>