Hi Suresh:
Thanks very much for your review. Responses inline ...
On 21/08/14 5:27 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-brownlee-svg-rfc-07
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
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.
Getting an SVG diagram into an RFC is a matter for verson 3 of xml2rfc
(see Paul Hoffman's "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary,"
draft-hoffman-xml2rfc) - I've added a note at the end of section 3 to say
To include a diagram into an RFC, the xml2rfc (v3) tool will
need to provide a way to include SVG drawings in Internet
Drafts.
* 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
paragraph necessary?
Hmm. I thought it was, but looking back at 'classic' RFCs like 1035
I see that you're right. 793 says that its TCP state diagram is "only a
summary and must not be taken as the total specification."
How about changing it as follows:
OLD: they are informative, not normative.
NEW: they provide supporting detail, and should not be considered
to be complete specifications in themselves.
* Section 4
Shouldn't we also be discussing the "role" attribute in the
accessibility context?
Well caught. I've added the 'role' SVG attribute, for all the elements
where it's allowed in SVG 1.2 Tiny.
I also found that the Web Accessibility Initiative's ARIA primer to be a
good introduction in addition to the SVG-ARIA reference.
http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-primer/
Added that into the last paragraph of Section 4, Accessibility.
* 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.
http://www.mcternan.me.uk/mscgen/
When I started my draft, I wasn't aware of all the diagram-drawing
packages that are out there! My examples in the draft are intended to
show what I think would be 'good' diagrams.
For now I'll start collecting a list of diagram-drawing websites and
applications; one day perhaps that list can move into the draft.
Thanks
Suresh
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
