[Gen-art] Gen-ART Early review of draft-brownlee-svg-rfc-07

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Thu, 21 August 2014 05:27 UTC

From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: "draft-brownlee-svg-rfc.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-brownlee-svg-rfc.all@tools.ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Early review of draft-brownlee-svg-rfc-07
Thread-Index: Ac+9AJFQ6TEXEhGMTECX+hf+qko1Gg==
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 05:27:15 +0000
Message-ID: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF628804CAE@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/_EdhXPMU9YTEhH7aak_Zq-JQZ1o
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Early review of draft-brownlee-svg-rfc-07
Precedence: list

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.


* 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?


* Section 4


Shouldn't we also be discussing the "role" attribute in the
accessibility context?


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/


* 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/


Thanks

Suresh

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Early review of draft-brownlee-… Suresh Krishnan
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Early review of draft-brown… Nevil Brownlee