[rfc-i] Fwd: Gen-ART Early review of draft-brownlee-svg-rfc-07
suresh.krishnan at ericsson.com
Tue Aug 26 15:15:24 PDT 2014
I performed an early Gen-ART review for this draft and I was asked to
also send this to the rfc-interest list.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Gen-ART Early review of draft-brownlee-svg-rfc-07
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 01:27:15 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan at ericsson.com>
To: draft-brownlee-svg-rfc.all at tools.ietf.org
<draft-brownlee-svg-rfc.all at tools.ietf.org>, General Area Review Team
<gen-art at ietf.org>
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-brownlee-svg-rfc-07
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.
Summary: This draft is on track to be published as an Informational RFC,
but I have some suggestions that the authors may like to consider.
* Meta comment
It is not clear how the SVGs will be included in the RFCs? Will they be
included as inline XML? Can you please clarify.
* Section 1
Last paragraph: It is not really true that diagrams in RFCs are not
normative. e.g. The ordering of fields in a packet is specified by a
packet format diagram and the text only describes the contents of the
fields (and not necessarily the structure of the packet itself). Is this
* Section 4
Shouldn't we also be discussing the "role" attribute in the
I also found that the Web Accessibility Initiative's ARIA primer to be a
good introduction in addition to the SVG-ARIA reference.
* Sections 5.2 and 5.3
The meta language used in these sections (especially 5.3) is a bit
confusing. Is the goal of such languages to also go into the
presentation details as they do now? I think it would be more
illustrative if the example languages are made a bit simpler. e.g. I use
the mscgen program a lot in my day job and the language used by mscgen
is a bit simpler and illustrates the message sequence more clearly.
More information about the rfc-interest