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

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 05:27:15 +0000

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