- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:36:19 -0400
- To: SVG IG List <public-svg-ig@w3.org>
-------- 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, etc.)? * 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, Helder [1] http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/cs427/StateOfArt-Dailey.html [2] http://dev.w3.org/ -- Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 14:36:28 UTC