W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

References in SVG 1.1 Second Edition

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 00:06:30 +1000
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090501140630.GB26586@arc.mcc.id.au>
Hello WG!

I’m wondering whether certain references in SVG 1.1 Second Edition
should be updated to the latest corresponding spec.  The following are
informative references to non-latest version specs that I think we could
bump up without harm, especially the ones which weren’t RECs at the

Charmod 1.0
  WD 30 Apr 2002       to  1.0 “Fundamentals”, REC 15 Feb 2005
MathML 2.0
  REC 21 Feb 2001      to  2.0 Second Edition, REC 21 Oct 2003
RDF Syntax
  REC 22 Feb 1999      to  RDF Primer, REC 10 Feb 2004
  CR 27 Mar 2000       to  REC 10 Feb 2004
  REC 26 Jan 2000      to  Second Edition, REC 1 August 2002

There are mentions in the spec of how you should follow WCAG, and how
you can use XSLT.  We could add references to WCAG2 and XSLT2 here, just
as we did in 1.2T.  Again, these are informative, so it would just be if
we want to acknowledge the newer specs.

Now, for the normative references.  These are the ones that have newer

DOM 2 Core
  REC 13 Nov 2000      to  DOM 3 Core, REC 7 Apr 2004

  I don’t think we should do this one.

  REC 1 Oct 1996       to  Second Edition, REC 10 Nov 2003

  Errata and clarifications.  1.2T references this.

  RFC 2396 Aug 1998    to  RFC 3986, Jan 2005

  Incorporates RFC 2372 (IPv6 literals), which 1.1 already references
  separately.  Various bug fixes and clarifications.  1.2T references

Language Tags
  RFC 3066 Jan 2001    to  BCP 47 (RFC 4646 & 4647), Sep 2006

  Allows more flexible language tags, like zh-TW-Hant.  Defines language
  tag matching.  1.2T references this.

  RFC 2279 Jan 1998    to  RFC 3629, Nov 2003

  Stricter on allowing only code points 0000-10FFFF to be encoded.
  Stricter on decoding invalid UTF-8.  1.2T references this.

  3.2 2000             to  5.1, 2007

  The only practical difference would be changes to the Unicode bidi
  algorithm (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/#Modifications).
  1.2T references Unicode 4.1.

XML 1.0 Second Edition
  REC 6 Oct 2000       to  Fifth Edition, REC 26 Nov 2008

  Forwards-compatible handling of XML 1.1 documents (which nobody uses
  anyway), allowing more characters in XML names, various
  clarifications.  1.2T references the Fourth Edition.

XML Base
  REC 27 June 2001     to  Second Edition, REC 28 Jan 2009

  Clarifications.  1.2T references the First Edition.

Namespaces in XML
  REC 14 Jan 1999      to  Second Edition, 17 Aug 2006

  Clarifications and bug fixes.  1.2T references this.

XSL 1.0
  REC 15 Oct 2001      to  1.1, REC 6 Dec 2006

  The only thing SVG 1.1 depends normatively on XSL for is the
  definition of font baselines in the Text chapter.  That text hasn’t
  changed from XSL 1.0 to 1.1, so there’d be no practical change from
  updating the reference.  1.2T references this.

Other W3C specifications take the opportunity of a subsequent edition to
bump references like these, so I think we should if there’s no downside.

BTW I don’t think we should add a reference to XML 1.1. :-)



Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 14:07:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:29:41 UTC