- From: Ola Andersson <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 08:35:59 +0200
- 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 versions, to check for outdated references, and so 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