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

Doug Royer douglasroyer at gmail.com
Wed Feb 17 13:16:28 PST 2016


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.


-- 

Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
DouglasRoyer at gmail.com
714-989-6135

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4251 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20160217/f6fd863a/attachment.p7s>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list