Early Review of draft-brownlee-svg-rfc-07
review-brownlee-svg-rfc-07-genart-early-krishnan-2014-08-21-00

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