Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Expressing SVG viewbox attribute in 6.5.2 is misunderstandable (Editorial) #860

Closed
iherman opened this issue Sep 8, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed
Labels
EPUB32 Issues from 3.0.1 resolved in the EPUB 3.2 specification Topic-ContentDocs The issue affects EPUB content documents
Milestone

Comments

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Sep 8, 2016

For SVG Con­tent Doc­u­ments, the root svg el­e­ment must in­clude ei­ther the view­Box at­tribute or the height and width (and op­tional x and y) at­trib­utes, or both.

I wonder whether adding a comma after viewBox attribute, saying

For SVG Con­tent Doc­u­ments, the root svg el­e­ment must in­clude ei­ther the view­Box at­tribute, or the height and width (and op­tional x and y) at­trib­utes, or both.

Otherwise the term 'both' is not clear in my view.

@iherman iherman added the Topic-ContentDocs The issue affects EPUB content documents label Sep 8, 2016
@iherman iherman added this to the EPUB 3.1 milestone Sep 8, 2016
@iherman iherman changed the title Expressing SVG viewbox attribute misunderstandable (Editorial) Expressing SVG viewbox attribute in 6.5.2 is misunderstandable (Editorial) Sep 8, 2016
@mattgarrish
Copy link
Member

Adding a comma in the middle of an either/or statement strikes me as odd. What if we take "or both" off the end and shorten a little:

"For SVG Content Documents, the root svg element must include either or both of the viewBox and the height/width (and optional x/y) attributes."

@iherman
Copy link
Member Author

iherman commented Sep 8, 2016

On 8 Sep 2016, at 14:33, Matt Garrish notifications@github.com wrote:

Adding a comma in the middle of an either/or statement strikes me as odd. What if we take "or both" off the end and shorten a little:

"For SVG Content Documents, the root svg element must include either or both of the viewBox and the height/width (and optional x/y) attributes."

I guess what bothered me (and this is the same here) is that the term 'both' refers to two entities, whereas here we have, on the one hand, a single attribute and, on the other hand, a group of attributes as some sort of a logical unit. But if it is all right for your native ears, then that is fine and we can close it...

@mattgarrish
Copy link
Member

It's an awkward statement, for sure. I took out "height and width" and replaced with a slash for exactly that reason. We could just make it a list for absolute clarity:

For SVG Content Documents, the root svg element must include one or both of:

  • the viewBox attribute;
  • the height and width (and optional x and y) attributes.

@iherman
Copy link
Member Author

iherman commented Sep 8, 2016

On 8 Sep 2016, at 15:08, Matt Garrish notifications@github.com wrote:

It's an awkward statement, for sure. I took out "height and width" and replaced with a slash for exactly that reason. We could just make it a list for absolute clarity:

For SVG Content Documents, the root svg element must include one or both of:

the viewBox attribute;
the height and width (and optional x and y) attributes.

Yes, that is much clearer. Thx

mattgarrish added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 8, 2016
mattgarrish added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 14, 2016
#870 - clarify white space in epub:type
#866 - clarify hyperlinks outside container do no get listed in manifest
#855 - remove normative keyword from informative discouraged constructs
#853 - separate/clarify rdfa and microdata usage and support
#847 - improve media overlays purpose and scope description
#844 - remove "user" as a defined term
#842 - clarify meaning of element "value" as text content
#834 - remove html processing model from relationship description

Also include minor wording clarifications suggested as part of the content documents review in issues #880, #879, #878, #877, #876, #875, #874, #868, #867, #864, #863, #860, #857, #856, #852, #849 and a few issues reported by via the mailing list.
@mattgarrish mattgarrish added the EPUB32 Issues from 3.0.1 resolved in the EPUB 3.2 specification label Aug 14, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
EPUB32 Issues from 3.0.1 resolved in the EPUB 3.2 specification Topic-ContentDocs The issue affects EPUB content documents
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants