[www-svg] <none>

Dean and Chris and Jon and W3C,

I not sure if this falls under editorial or error...but after reading the 
final SVG 1.0 (and even before it made it to final approval ) ....I think I 
figured out why I have had so much trouble with the first two paragraphs of 
the Specification....and am asking for a review by the W3 !!!

I have put my solution at the Top of this E-mail  because it is kinda 
long......please read it Dean and Chris and Jon and W3C,.....if you want to 
understand my suggestion :-)

SOLUTION:
In the two paragraphs of the SVG 1.0:

1.1 About SVG
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/intro.html#AboutSVG

The feature set includes nested transformations, clipping paths, alpha 
masks, filter effects and template objects.

"feature set" should have link to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/struct.html#RequiredFeaturesAttribute

SVG drawings can be animated and  be dynamic. Animations can be defined and 
triggered either declaratively (i.e., by embedding SVG animation elements in 
SVG content) or via scripting.

"animated" in the first sentence should be linked to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/struct.html#RequiredFeaturesAttribute
(it would be nice if it linked to the bullet that addressed 
org.w3c.svg.animation )

"dynamic in the first sentence should be linked to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/struct.html#RequiredFeaturesAttribute
(it would be nice if it linked to the bullet that addressed 
org.w3c.svg.dynamic)






############################
THE PROBLEM
############################

1) In second paragraph of SVG 1.0
1.1 About SVG
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/intro.html#AboutSVG

The last sentence in the paragraph is important:
<snip>
The feature set includes nested transformations, clipping paths, alpha 
masks, filter effects and template objects
</snip>

(MY SUGGESTION IS:)
"feature set " needs to be a link.....I am suggesting to :
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/struct.html#RequiredFeaturesAttribute

This may not make sense why it needs to be a link at first .....until you 
read the first and second sentences of third paragraph:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/intro.html#AboutSVG

<snip>
SVG drawings can be interactive and dynamic. Animations can be defined and 
triggered either declaratively (i.e., by embedding SVG animation elements in 
SVG content) or via scripting.
</snip>

The first sentence seems to make sense until you really read it closely and 
click the links.....

first sentence:
<snip>
SVG drawings can be interactive and dynamic.
</snip>

interactive  links to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/interact.html

dynamic links to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/animate.html

you say so what ..........I say look at the next sentence :
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/intro.html#AboutSVG
<snip>
Animations can be defined and triggered either declaratively (i.e., by 
embedding SVG animation elements in SVG content) or via scripting.
</snip>

The first word of this sentence "Animation" is  links to :
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/animate.html

NOTICE: that "dynamic" in the sentence before........links to the same place 
as "Animation" in the sentence after...........THIS IS CONFUSING because 
....... believe it or not if you follow the link that I suggest "feature 
set" should have .......you will notice that "dynamic" and  "Animation" have 
totally different meaning in SVG!!!!!!!!!!

I could give more evidence ...like...out of the 11 chapters "dynamic"  is 
used in (31 times total) the word "dynamic" is used i only 4 times in 
reference to "Animation"......and one of this times is the link I am 
questioning.....so dynamic does not even come close to meaning "animation" 
in SVG.....I could give more facts ....but I think I have given ample 
evidence.

   I  hope you can see I have invested a lot of time in trying to understand 
this and point out to you that it need to be changed......it is ...in my 
opinion.........wrong and flawed and as for as I can understand lacking any 
usefulness in the specification as it is now.
(this is not a put down on anyone......it has taken me  about 6 months to 
catch it myself.   SVG 1.0 is an amazing piece of work!!!..... I just want 
to suggest to the W3C possible misreading of SVG 1.0 and how a little change 
could help make the specification more useful for developers ...... :-)

   I have mentioned this before.........when I read technical writing.....I 
read it literally.......These sentences are at the beginning of the 
specification....and for me.....are the corner stones for 
understanding.......I hope you share the concern I have about addressing 
this issue.....I  am not exaggerating when I say It has taken me 6 months or 
more to understand why I was confused ....and now I think I know why  :-)

It might be nice to point out the features in a appendix or something like 
that......but I really think this issue needs to be addressed.

thank you for your time....sorry for the long message....I just do not know 
how to say it in a shorter way :-(

We all learn by sharing what we know
Robert A. DiBlasi
www.svgnotebook.com

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 19:20:16 UTC