- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:35:45 +0200
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org
On Sunday, March 29, 2009, 6:28:45 AM, Cameron wrote: CM> Hi everyone. CM> I think we should remove the DTD fragments from the main chapters of SVG CM> 1.1 for the Second Edition. They are difficult to read, sometimes CM> incomplete (compared to the ones included in SVG 1.0) and are CM> distracting, IMO. I’ve been working on build scripts to get 1.1 2ed CM> publication working and experimenting with a clearer summary of CM> elements. Here’s an example: CM> http://mcc.id.au/temp/struct.html CM> Those blue boxes used in place of the DTD fragments are similar to the CM> green boxes in the HTML 5 spec. Oh, thats so much better. The SVG 1.0 DTD was just about readable, the modularised SVG 1.1 DTD was a spaghetti mess of conditional cross references and fake namespace hackery, and the SVG 1.2 RBG fragments are not super-readable either. These are much nicer. What do you start from, RNG? CM> I’ve also got links to the relevant DOM interface in those blue boxes, CM> and in the IDL definitions section, the types and names in the IDL code CM> are linked to their definitions. CM> Not sure what to do with the DTD fragment in CM> http://mcc.id.au/temp/struct.html#xlinkRefAttrs since the prose talks CM> about the entities. Maybe we could just remove that paragraph too. Having looked at it, the entities are merely of relevance to how the DTD is constructed and do not affact actual content, so i think they should be removed. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 18:36:01 UTC