W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2005

RE: SVG12: svgudom style

From: Ola Andersson <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 08:35:59 +0200
Message-ID: <586AE9F507AF5E4AA45364333D9E2FA201093CAA@sesthsrv02.zoomon.local>
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>, <w3c-svg-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net]
> Sent: den 22 maj 2005 05:54
> To: Ola Andersson
> Cc: www-svg@w3.org; w3c-svg-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SVG12: svgudom style
> * Ola Andersson wrote:
> >I've now improved the styling of the udom appendix. Param names are
> >highlighted, hyperlinks are added, return types are clearly listed,
> >etc. In general I've choosen to follow the styling of the svg 1.1
> >DOM specification rather than the DOM3 specs since SVG1.2 readers
> >are likely to be familiar with the older svg specifications.
> I am not sure whether this satisfies me, the only acceptable formatting
> I've seen so far is that of DOM Level 3, the style in SVG 1.1 (and Tiny
> 1.2) is very poor. 

As in all cases regarding styling, it's a very subjective opinion what is considered acceptabe and what is considered poor. I'm not agreeing with your statement above but that is of course just my personal opinion.

> For SVG 1.2 "Full" in particular readers will likely
> have to consult the DOM specifications aswell, so while I do not mind
> different color schemes and thelike, I think there should not be other
> differences. At the very least, please make sure that all members in
> IDL code link to the definition of that member.
> Note, http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/java/classes/org/w3c/tools/specgenerator
> and http://www.w3.org/DOM/Group/drafts/scripts/ (member-only) were used
> to generate markup, the IDL code, the Java and ECMAScript bindings, etc.
> for the DOM specifications.
> It's based on an extented XMLSpec format which is widely used across
> working groups, there are many tools for it to generate diff, single
> file, PDF, etc. versions, to check for outdated references, and so
> on. I would suggest to switch to this XMLSpec format, it would solve
> a bunch of issues and generate the style I'd like to see here...

Switching to XMLSpec format is a good suggestion. This is IMO something we should consider for the next version of SVG.

> Failing that, could you list the differences between DOM Level 3 and
> the new formatting for SVG Tiny 1.2?

IDL members does not link to member definitions.

> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 06:36:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:06 UTC