Fwd: [Moderator Action] Re: Progress on SVG book

-------- Original Message --------
From: Helder Miguel Magalhães <helder.magalhaes@efacec.pt>
To: <public-svg-ig@w3.org>

Hi David,

> A mini-landmark has been attained: I've finished the first phase of
> editorial revision: completing the translation from MS Word to HTML
> (begun by Doug in October).

Great work, David et. al.! ;-)

Congratulations on the effort for such an initiative, and for the
decision to maintain an online version. :-)

> Next I'll be sweeping through the document
> with regards to both incorporating changes suggested by the various
> reviewers and modernizing the text a little bit (e.g. to reflect the
> presence of SVG support in new browsers like Chrome and Safari). A bit
> of that modernization has already begun, as I happened to see things in
> sweeping through the HTML.

I've printed the online document [1] and started (very slowly)
reviewing it also. I've a number of changes (mostly minor stuff such
as typos and such) which I'd like to share but from this paragraph
some things aren't clear to me:
  * Is the online version [1] is the most updated?
  * Is HTML markup being used as source for the document or is it being
generated from another format (such as LaTeX or HTML)?
  * What's the best way to provide corrections for small stuff (typos, 
   * Described in text (something like 'In section X.Y, "tipo" -->
"typo") -- doesn't sound bad but it may be a bit of overhead for such
small stuff;
   * A patch to the HTML source? (this would welcome something like a
source control system such as CVS or SVN, as the W3C is already using
[2]) -- would sound better to me;
   * Send a fax of my hieroglyphic changes over the draft quality B&W
printout I made -- just kidding! ;-)
  * What's the best way to provide suggestions for relevant changes 
(text, etc.)?
   * Described in text -- sounds better;
   * Create a separate patch to the HTML source for each relevant
suggestion? (see above) -- sounds a bit of an overhead (and potential
thrown out work) for suggestions which not be accepted (by some
reason) and/or which may imply a great number of changes;
  * To where should the suggestions be addressed to?
   * To a mailing list  (this one?) -- sounds more reasonable so
everyone can see them and participate in the reviewing process;
   * Privately by email (to David?) -- will keep the noise down but at
the (potential) cost of double efforts being wasted.

Good luck,

[1] http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/cs427/StateOfArt-Dailey.html
[2] http://dev.w3.org/

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 14:36:28 UTC