- From: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:13:54 +0100
- To: SVG Working Group <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Hi Cameron, Erik, Cameron McCormack a écrit : > Hi Erik, Cyril. > > Cameron McCormack: >>>> A resource document is a document that has been loaded because it is >>>> referenced as a resource by an SVG document fragment. > > Cyril Concolato: >>> It should say here "because parts of it are referenced as resources" >>> as opposed to "presented in whole" in the above definition. Similar >>> wording would be good as well. > > Erik Dahlström: >> Could you clarify? >> >> You want to change: >> "A resource document is a document that has been loaded because it is >> referenced as a resource by an SVG document fragment." >> >> to: >> "A resource document is a document that has been loaded because parts >> of it are referenced as a resource by an SVG document fragment." >> >> Correct? I would agree with such a rewording, since resources are >> always parts of a document. > > Yes I think change is fine too, and I’ve just committed that. Thank you, that's what I meant. I wasn't clear in my comment. > >>>> References to any other kinds of document, such as media or external >>>> scripts, are not classified as primary or resource documents. Multiple >>>> references to media at a particular IRI always result in separate >>>> timelines being created. >>> This last part is also fine but you have a sentence explaining >>> the behavior for media. You should explicitely say what happens for >>> script. It may use a reference to HTML if you think it's better. >> I don't think this section is appropriate for such definitions. We >> have a scripting chapter, which we could link to. Does section 15.2.1 >> "Script Processing" not describe the processing well enough? I think >> it's rather clear from that section that if you have two separate >> script elements they will execute once each, even if the referenced >> script is the same IRI (and I can't help but wonder if this is really >> such a large issue, since IMHO it doesn't provide an author much value >> in running the same script snippet twice anyway). I'd guess that if >> you find this type of content then it's most likely an authoring >> mistake. > > I agree with Erik that I don’t think it’s necessary to say anything more > about scripting here beyond what already is. I understand and my initial comment is satisfied. Thank you. Cyril -- Cyril Concolato Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor Groupe Mutimedia/Multimedia Group Département Traitement du Signal et Images /Dept. Signal and Image Processing Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications 46 rue Barrault 75 013 Paris, France http://tsi.enst.fr/~concolat
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 11:14:17 UTC