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

Hi,

 

Sort of a status report and sort of a response to questions raised by Helder and others. [Hi Helder!]

 

Yes, the most up to date version is indeed for now at http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/cs427/StateOfArt-Dailey.html

 

I've been making new revisions every day. I've added a lot of styles, mostly to handle the various different ways that source listings are handled - four or more different varieties. I've finished up my response to from all of the original reviewers as well as some comments from Ruud. (I also managed to botch up and forget some very nice work he had done in December to make the HTML validate -- <sigh/>). Mainly right now, I've been working on modernizing the text, to make it a bit more reflective of the modern state of things than it was at the time of original completion. I'm also adding reasonable values to the empty alt tags generated by the HTML conversion. I think the document should be at its next stable version in about a week.

 

but here's what I'm thinking would be best for now:

I'll let SVG-IG know when I'm done with all my stuff (it really is pretty unstable right now)

At that point I'd like to move the most current version back to W3C (and possibly also to planetSVG).

At that time seems like the best time to open up things for another round of revisions. 

Typos and factual errors are clearly the sorts of things I want to address now, though suggestions for alternative perspectives, new sections, new examples, new chapters, and major reworks - that's a different phase, in my mind. Important, yes, but I'd like some help figuring out how that is best enabled, while still maintaining both a) a definitive current version at W3C and b) some degree of editorial control (which will lessen over time). 

 

Lots of new sections need to be added at some time; I think it makes sense for prospective authors to work with me on those for now.... from the Afterword:

 

*	A nice clean treatment of the interaction between scripted animation and SMIL; 
*	A good section on XSLT used with SVG; 
*	A small Appendix on HTML that actually reflects the state of HTML as it begins its transition into HTML5; 
*	Better treatment of SVG in HTML and XHTML (in-line SVG, SVG in text/HTML) etc.; 
*	A more extensive treatment of Ajax; 
*	use of the SVG 1.1 DOM methods (including such things as element.href.baseVal="http:..." instead of the more cumbersome setAttributeNS(). Perhaps a treatment of "shadow trees" would belong here; 
*	explanation of getScreenCTM 
*	A knowledgeable account of Apache Batik; 
*	illustration of drag and drop.(e.g., as at this example <http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/svg/makeDragDrop.svg> ) 
*	CSS and JavaScript (this stuff is now available in more than one browser and the SVG WG is extending its functionality in many important ways). 
*	The use of foreignObject (to put HTML inside SVG). 
*	A more thorough treatment of script libraries appropriate to SVG (e.g. Dojo); 
*	Code optimization (for example see http://www.treebuilder.de/default.asp?file=978374.xml) 
*	Accessibility issues in SVG. (A first step would be to make this book, itself more accessible, starting with reasonable values of the alt attribute for all images.) [note - this should be done soon!]
*	Other? 

 

So I see phase 0 (my own current revisions) as about to end

Phase 1 would consist of addressing the "easier" feedback from SVG IG: typos and errors of fact

Concurrent with this would be discussion of how to make Phases 2 and 3 happen

Phase 2 would consist of delegating responsibility for writing new sections.

Concurrent with this would be figuring out how to handle stylistic or pedagogical issues. E.g., questions like "should embed really be given such prominence or might something else be better?" I would rather not get bogged down in those things for now, and would prefer to just put a simple disclaimer on the document which allows W3C to distance itself from any of my prose that may differ from "official" W3C perspective.

Phase 3 would consist of figuring out how to decentralize control, consistent with W3C's and my own interests in the material.

 

Now it could well be that some sort of CMS through planetSVG would allow collaborative modification with editorial oversight in a way which would, in fact blur the boundaries between these phases and minimize the duplication of effort. Clearly having 20 people all point out the same typos is not useful (though I must say that among the 5 initial responses, very few people found the same typos). Many of you have had more experience with this sort of stuff than I and hence may know what works best.

 

In the short run I'm interested in getting the thing tidy, but not necessarily perfect, and welcome everyone's help in that way. I'm interested in getting it "out there" soon and visible to the larger public. I don't, however, want to sign up for perpetual maintenance duty. But then I'm also not ready just yet to turn it into a wiki. 

 

Does this make sense to folks?

 

Cheers

David

 

 

From: public-svg-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-svg-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rob Russell
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 11:08 AM
To: Jeff Schiller
Cc: Doug Schepers; SVG IG List
Subject: Re: [Moderator Action] Re: Progress on SVG book

 

Sure I can make a repository for the book. Does it need any access control on read or commits?

Rob Russell
rob@latenightpc.com
http://www.latenightpc.com/blog

Jeff Schiller wrote: 

"A patch to the HTML source? (this would welcome something like a
source control system such as CVS or SVN"
 
+1 for this - I would love to keep the most recent version of the
document on my box locally and have a feed for any changes.  That way
I can review anywhere (even when offline)
 
I forget where the ultimate destination of this book will be, but Rob,
what do you think about a SVN repository for David's book on planetsvg
somewhere?
 
Jeff
 
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> <mailto:schepers@w3.org>  wrote:
  

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