Fwd: SVG WG response to I18n WG comments on SVG Tiny 1.2

In case you did not see this.

-- Felix

------- Forwarded message -------
From: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
To: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Cc: w3c-svg-wg@w3.org
Subject: SVG WG response to I18n WG comments on SVG Tiny 1.2
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 04:21:20 +0900

Hello ,

Please find below our responses to

Please let us know if any response is unclear, and also if any response
does not satisfy you.

1. Appendix G on i18n support : The SVG1.2 vocabulary itself is still
1.0, so the schema doesn't directly support 1.1. Other namespaces may be
mixed with SVG, and the result may be an XML 1.1 document.

Agreed that the section on Compatibility with Other Standards Efforts
should also list XML 1.1, this was an oversight.

In practice we find that RNG implementations support 1.1,
using the techniques of Processing XML 1.1 documents with XML Schema 1.0
processors http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xml11schema10-20050511/

2. Appendix G on i18n support : Agreed, appendix G now references both
Charmod normalization and fundamentals

3. Sec. 10.2 : Composite chars. - Agreed, where we say "é" we need to
say "é (U+00E9)" to clarify that is the precomposed form of e acute that
we are talking about.

4. Sec 10.3 : No change was requested

5. Sec 10.6.2 - Agreed, we have replaced our reference to your sec 3.1.1
with a reference to Unicode annex 9 http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/

6. Comment on tables -
   We have these tables : See Appendix in the Spec.
We plan to link them to the definitions to help get the information

7. Readability : Agreed, in an effort to improve readability, our plan
is to link the elements in the element definition to where they are
defined. This will help the spec. readers to find the definition

8. Sec 10.9 : Font - There are no SVG-specific font properties in Tiny,
and the properties are the same as those in CSS 2.0 with the exception
of font-size. font-size in SVG doesn't allow percentages, but can take
unitless length values. So, we don't think a change is necessary

9. An example without xml:space
Agreed - this was an editing mistake, this example has been fixed

10. Whitespace handling - We are currently referencing CSS 2.0; and not
taking anything from CSS2.1 because a) they are not yet a recommendation
and b) we cannot reference 2.1, because they removed some of the
references we use, their primary concern for CSS 2.1 being HTML user

11. Vertical text - Vertical text is specified in 1.1 Full and will also
be specified in 1.2 Full. So, to clarify, it is not being removed from
the SVG language.

Feedback from Japanese implementors, operators and content creators
indicated that if Tiny 1.2 did not do vertical text (as 1.1 Tiny also
did not) this would not be a problem.

We have not yet discussed any later Tiny spec (1.3 Tiny....)

12. Sec 17.4:  Agreed: we now say 3066 or its successor.

Agreed: The new text in the spec is correct, please see

Thanks for the suggestion, we will look at

13. Sec 5.8.5 : Thank you for the pointer, referencing to the link is
useful, but it is a working draft, not a recommendation so we cannot
make a normative reference. We will track
this, and consider it for later versions when the techniques document is
further through the standards process.
Dated version:

Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 02:51:56 UTC