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 mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
