- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:38:39 -0400
- To: Helder Magalhães <helder.magalhaes@gmail.com>
- CC: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi, Helder- I'm addressing many of your editorial comments in one fell swoop in this email. Please review the editor's draft of the spec to ensure that we have satisfied your comments: http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/ If any of these responses do not satisfy your comment, please let us know; otherwise, please promptly acknowledge your satisfaction. Please see details responses inline... Helder Magalhães wrote (on 10/13/08 5:22 AM): > > 2. Typo in Linking section [LINKING] > > In subsection "14.1.4 Reference restrictions", "not" is repeated. > > Current wording: > > A: A reference to a fragment within the current document (e.g. > '#someelement'). If the referenced fragment is not within the current > SVG document fragment then whether the reference is an invalid IRI > reference or not not is defined by the host language. > > Proposed change: > > A: A reference to a fragment within the current document (e.g. > '#someelement'). If the referenced fragment is not within the current > SVG document fragment then whether the reference is an invalid IRI > reference or not is defined by the host language. (ISSUE-2116 <http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2116>) Corrected as suggested. > 3. Typo in Linking section [LINKING] > > In subsection "14.1.5 IRI reference attributes", "XLink" is mistyped. > > Current wording: > > xlink:type = 'simple' > Identifies the type of XLink being used. In SVG Tiny 1.2, only > simple links are available. In line with the changes proposed in > XLiunk 1.1 [XLink11], this attribute may be omitted on simple links. > > Proposed change: > > xlink:type = 'simple' > Identifies the type of XLink being used. In SVG Tiny 1.2, only > simple links are available. In line with the changes proposed in XLink > 1.1 [XLink11], this attribute may be omitted on simple links. (ISSUE-2116 <http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2116>) Corrected as suggested. > 4. Images mixed with text in linking section [LINKING] (ISSUE-2117 <http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2117>) Corrected as suggested. > 5. W3C home page link change [LINKING] > > Example "17_01.svg" uses a link which, while being somehow > "less-RESTful", will also cause an additional HTTP redirection > request. > > Current markup: > > <a xlink:href="http://www.w3.org"> > > Proposed change: > > <a xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/"> (ISSUE-2118 <http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2118>) Corrected to say <a xlink:href="http://www.example.com/">. > 6. Grammatical suggestion in Linking section [LINKING] > > In subsection "14.3.2 SVG fragment identifiers", the verb to replace > doesn't seem to be properly conjugated (plus a minor suggestion). > > Current wording: > > An SVG fragment identifier must match the specified grammar. To ensure > robust content it is recommended that spaces between numeric values be > omitted or replace with percent encoded strings or commas as > appropriate. > > Proposed change: > > An SVG fragment identifier must match the specified grammar. To ensure > robust content it is recommended that spaces between numeric values > are omitted or replaced with percent encoded strings or commas as > appropriate. (ISSUE-2119 <http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2119>) Clarified and corrected to say: [[ An SVG fragment identifier must match the specified grammar. To ensure robust content, authors are recommended to omit spaces between numeric values, or replace these spaces with percent-encoded strings or commas as appropriate. ]] > I believe there's nothing wrong with the verb to be ("be" changed for > "are") - I guess it is a matter of preference. :-) Actually, it's the use of the subjunctive mood in the passive tense, which while fairly commmon, is probably less clear for non-native speakers (c.f., http://www.google.com/search?q=%22it+is+recommended+that+this+be%22). I hope the correct makes more sense. > 7. Minor inconsistency in Linking section [LINKING] > > In subsection "14.3.2 SVG fragment identifiers", there's reference to > a situation already discarded by the previous premise. It is suggested > to remove the "is not found, or ". (ISSUE-2120 <http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2120>) Corrected as suggested. > I'd further suggest to try breaking this lengthy list item (possibly) > into several nested list items. Not a bad idea. If we have time, we will do that, and if not in this spec, then certainly in SVG 2.0 Core. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Monday, 13 October 2008 20:39:14 UTC