[rfc-i] draft-iab-svg-rfc feedback
n.brownlee at auckland.ac.nz
Thu Feb 25 15:51:59 PST 2016
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
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
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
- - - - -
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
> (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
Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department
Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland
FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
More information about the rfc-interest