Re: publishing SVG 2 WD

Aside from that +1 to publish.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger



From:	Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
To:	public-svg-wg@w3.org,
Date:	02/21/2013 01:58 PM
Subject:	Re: publishing SVG 2 WD



On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:48:28 +0100, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
wrote:

> I wanted to sign off on SVG 2 as it is currently so that we can publish
> another WD of it.  I meant to add that to the agenda for last week but
> forgot.
>
> Could people who are interested in reviewing to make sure they are happy

> with the WD publication please read through the parts changed since the
> FPWD -- they should all have been marked with a yellow background,
> class="ready-for-wg-review" -- so that we can resolve to publish at the
> next telcon?  (There is no handy index, I'm afraid, although you could
> perform a diff of the changes.html appendix to get a high level
> overview.  I still need to do the work to separate that out into
> "changes since SVG 1.1 SE" and "changes since the last WD".)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cameron

There are some minor editorial things I think would be good to fix before
publishing, such as making sure the produced spec text doesn't contain e.g

"@@ unknown element/term". The changes appendix needs to be updated too,
it's not "changes since SVG 1.1", it should be changes since the last SVG2

WD.

Apart from that I think it's good to go.


--
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed