[rfc-i] draft-iab-svg-rfc feedback

[n.brownlee at auckland.ac.nz (Nevil Brownlee)]

Hi Doug:

Sorry, it's taken me a few days to catch up on this.
Responding to your emails ...

13 Feb, 0711:
   - Text (section 2.1) and rnc syntax (Appendix A) don't match.
   . Ah, you're right, there are mismatches.
       You report (below) that tspan should allow x and y,
       I've also found that text should allow space
     The rnc version is intended to be the complete definition,
       Section 2.1 is an easier-to-understand version of it.

13 Feb, 0759:
   - svg element should only allow version="1.2" baseProfile="tiny"
   . changed in both sections 2.1 and Appendix A.

13 Feb, 0832:
   - should we allow zoom and pan?
   . No.  I've changed Appendix A to only allow zoomAndPan "disable"
       in the svg element.

15 Feb, 0812:
   - rfc-svg didn't say 1.2-tiny is the starting point.
   . Section 2 does say that clearly, section 1 is an introduction to
       svg for people who haven't thought about it before.  As for RFC 6949,
       the text explains that it's a "specification for changes to RFC 
format."

18 Feb, 1016:
   - tspan should allow lots of attributes
   . Yes. The rnc is derived from the original 1.2-tiny rng, that's derived
       from the original 1.2-tiny schema, which has lots of cross-references
       between various elements.  The rng version does that by simply
       expanding all the cross-references, which is why many elemnts have
       such long lists of attributes.
     Section 2.1 isn't intended to be a complete spec, Appendix A is.
       I'll put a note to say that into section 2.1.

I've published a new (-02) version of the draft, it includes all the
changes listed above.  I've also pushed the current versions of the
-02 draft, svn.rnc and svg.rng to
   https://github.com/nevil-brownlee/draft-svg-rfc.git
If you find any more inconsistencies, please let me know.

Also, if you'd like to try my check-svg tool, it's available from
   https://github.com/nevil-brownlee/check-svg.git

Cheers, Nevil

- - - - -

On 18/02/16 10:16 am, Doug Royer wrote:
> On 02/15/2016 11:23 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> On 2/14/16 11:12 AM, Doug Royer wrote:
>>> The rfc-svg draft is not ready, its interesting, but not ready for
>>> last call.
>>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> Are you planning to say more about this? Do you have specific issues
>> that we need to address in the SVG draft? The feedback would be
>> appreciated.
>
> (Some saw my previous post, some did not....)
>
> Section 2.1 does not match Appendix A. If I implement per section 2.1,
> it would no allow some values allowed in Appendix A.
>
> If I implement appendix A, it violates 2.1.
>
> I ran into this when I was implementing a XSLT script to strip out and
> tweak non-valid svg-rfc values. I found the X and Y attributes to the
> TSPAN element. They are not listed in 2.1, and allowed by Appendix 'A'.
>
> There were other attribute values I found in A and not listed in 2.1. It
> looks to me that only one of those two sections should exist in the draft.
>
> If they are supposed to be identical in meaning, then you don't need both?
>
> Section 2.1 allows TSPAN to have :  (id, role, fill).
> And yet: Appendix A allows TSPAN to have about 48 attributes, including
> id, role, and fill.
>
> It does not take much work to find other examples.
>
> In section 5, it says  "This section presents a few examples of possible
> meta-languages which could be used to create the kinds of diagrams that
> are most common in RFCs" ...
>
> So, delete this section and submit a draft for that topic, or define the
> meta language?
>
> For someone like me that jumped into this later in the process, it looks
> as if this draft is in a very preliminary idea phase, and not ready yet.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                          Computer Science Department
  Phone: [phone] x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: [phone]   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand