W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2008

Re: [1.2T-LC] Comments on Last Call WD of SVG T1.2 (ISSUE-2132)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:47:47 -0400
Message-ID: <48F6C773.2050006@w3.org>
To: cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr
CC: www-svg@w3.org

Hi, Cyril-

Cyril Concolato wrote (on 10/13/08 7:03 AM):
> * section 5.2 The 'g' element
> In general, the way "attribute definitions" are given is confusing. For
> example, if one does not understand RNG (and dig into all RNG snippets),
> it will think the g element only has the focusable attribute and the
> navigation attributes

We have element and attribute tables that are more comprehensive, and in
order to make it more obvious, I have written a small overview of how to
use the specification. [1]

In future specifications, we intend to pay more attention to the
organization and design of the specification, to make it more intuitive
to use.  One such improvement is to add the attribute and element tables
inline in the definitions, in SVG 2.0 Core.

> Also, the general syntax sometimes is confusing:  for example:
> preserveAspectRatio = "[defer] <align> [<meet>]"  should rather be
> something like:
> preserveAspectRatio = ["defer"] <align> [<meet>]
> There are several examples in this case.

The SVG WG agrees that there are some inconsistencies in the way values
are formatted, and we will continue correcting them as we find them.

In this instance, I have corrected the example you point out.

Please let us know promptly if this satisfies your comment.

[1] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/intro.html#howtouse

Received on Thursday, 16 October 2008 04:47:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:20 UTC