Re: Finalizing the SVG Primer

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:35:28 -0500
"Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu> wrote:

> Hi Doug, all,
> 
> A couple of little changes since the last time this group talked
> about it. In the spring of this year, I agreed to resume "editorship"
> of the document. Jeff and I were sort of planning, I think, to
> announce that to this group and then we both got busy. I know that a
> number of folks (including Helder, Wade and others) put effort into
> updating the document. It would be nice if the Primer could reflect
> those efforts and also for those who made those revisions not to feel
> their efforts were in vain. I would hope that between now and our
> "publication date," I can make some effort to incorporate that work.
> 
> Second, Phil Archer of W3C has kindly made some recent revisions to
> the document, working through and correcting some errors and
> identifying some places where revisions are needed. If you open the
> document at
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/IG/resources/svgprimer.html you'll see
> some of his footprints. Some other folks, in the meanwhile have
> indicated an interest in helping out as well. 
> 
> Third, during the progress of the course, several small errors in the
> document have been identified to me by students, and I've been
> keeping a running list of those changes to be made.
> 
> Finally, and also as a part of the running of the class, I've created
> some new material that, in some cases, expands and in others
> simplifies some of the explanations of how to do things. Several new,
> I think rather elegantly simple examples have been created.
> 
> In conclusion, I think that Jan. 15, 2011 sounds fine to me; perhaps
> Doug, you could refresh my memory on how I can ftp new versions to
> the w3.org hosting site; if so the disclaimer might not need to be
> quite so severe.

Additionally, if you can announce any sections that still have not been
reviewed. Someone might be able to shake loose some tuits to do a quick
review of anything they feel particularly strongly about or are
particularly knowledgeable about.

Part of the important part of setting the deadline is a little urgency.
I know I reviewed a section back when we first talked about this.
Without signs that a new release was imminent, I never really went back
to check for more to do.

I agree with Doug and David that an "official" version by middle of
January would be good. I, for one, could probably shake loose a little
time if some changes or further review were needed. (Even if it's just
another pair of eyes to make sure it makes sense.)

G. Wade
-- 
When in doubt, use brute force                       -- Ken Thompson

Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 23:41:48 UTC