W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

RE: ISSUE-2344: Update references section [SVG 1.1 F2 Last Call]

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:54:20 -0700
To: "'Chris Lilley'" <chris@w3.org>
CC: SVG Working Group WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D23D6B9E57D654429A9AB6918CACEAA97D22B40DEE@NAMBX02.corp.adobe.com>
On the ICC spec - the ICC and the ISO versions are technically equivalent but the ISO version uses correct/proper ISO terminology and is thus a better normative reference.  It's similar to the way PDF 1.7 vs. ISO 32000-1 relate.  So there is nothing wrong with using the ICC version but the ICC recommends the ISO version.

And I'll forgo the entire "it's not good if it's not free" discussion :).

Leonard

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 10:02 AM
To: Leonard Rosenthol
Cc: SVG Working Group WG
Subject: Re: ISSUE-2344: Update references section [SVG 1.1 F2 Last Call]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 10:44:26 PM, Leonard wrote:

LR> Make sure for ECMAScript that you are using the proper version as
LR> there were advanced in the core language that have not been adopted across all browsers/UA's

I'm checking on that.

LR> For the ICC spec, you should use the ISO version instead of the ICC version.
LR> ISO 15076-1:2005, Image technology colour management —
LR> Architecture, profile format and data structure — Part 1: Based on ICC.1:2004-10

I'm fine with adding a mention of the ISO version as well, if they are equivalent. Are they?

I assume the ISO version is not available for free download? Since the ICC spec is, we should continue to refer to that.

LR> It's sRGB (not the lower 's')

Yup.

LR> Like ECMAScript, be sure to make sure that you really want the
LR> latest version of Unicode as there are changes (especially in
LR> specific character codes) that may have changed but not be fully
LR> supported. Also, changes to common algorithms like BiDi, etc. could also come into play.

As XML 5th edition specifically links to the 'latest' version of Unicode and since the I18n Core WG refer to it also in their discussions of bidi it seems clear we should refernce the latest one, too.

LR> Same with OpenType.  Don't reference the latest if that isn't what folks are using...

I'm checking on that one also.

LR> FWIW - we specifically DON'T reference the latest versions of all
LR> standard from PDF/ISO 32000-1. We have a set that are the basis
LR> for standard implementations and that is what is used.  I recommend the same.


ISSUE-2344 
ACTION-2821
-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 15:54:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:12 UTC