W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2004

Re: [SVGT12 Comment] SVG Tiny review

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:04:15 +0100
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <cifcfh$pee$1@sea.gmane.org>

"Richard Schwerdtfeger (by way of Al Gilman)" <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote in 
message news:p06110406bd70dfc9723a@[]...

> 1. <desc> is absent. This needs to be put back.
> 2. <title> is absent. This needs to be put back.

Why do you believe these are absent?  They appear available to me.

> 5. Support for text access
> Why is tref not available for <text>

tref has severe accessibility problems, I strongly believe it should not be 
part of the spec (it's a reliance on external data without any mechanism to 
provide fallback when that data is not available e.g. 
http://jibbering.com/2002/8/thellamas.svg .)

> 7. Where is XForms support? Is this expected as an add on? XForms has a 
> lot of accessibility features through declarative markup.

What do you feel is missing from the spec that means XForms cannot be 
supported - or what support means in the case of SVG Tiny?

> 8. Support for meta information
> I believe the group should be considering the meta module (for which we 
> are adding role) as a module to both SVG 1.2 Tiny and SVG 1.2.
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-metaAttributes.html#s_metaAttributesmodule>http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-metaAttributes.html#s_metaAttributesmodule

Please no, that needs an awful lot of work before it's remotely usable, and 
delaying SVG 1.2 Tiny to a time when that is finished and referencable seems 
completely unwarranted when there is already RDF support in SVG (indeed I 
see no reason for the HTML WG to re-invent another metadata language either, 
the work's already been done in other groups.)

Received on Friday, 17 September 2004 19:04:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:02 UTC