Talk:Activities

Please could Accessibility be the first item?

various rationales include:

significance,

the complete lack of input for almost a decade,

following good practice as shown by W3C homepage.

Jonathan, I intend to put Accessibility as the first item to discuss on the conf call this week. Since I know you will be most intimately involved with this activity, If you are not available for the wider IG conf call, you and I (and others) can have a separate call later this month to focus on the Accessibility activity. Also, in the future, can you please sign your Talk: page comments on the wiki using four tildes (~). Wikimedia automatically inserts your name and the time you edited. Jeff schiller 00:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Accessibility

here is NOT a suitable word for a link. It tells the user nothing...

many users search through the links on a page, not the content, links need to be keywords with relevance to the linked content.

Torture tests vs. Canonical examples

While examples such as located at http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/svg/newstuff/Newlist.htm might make appropriate torture tests (given review and comment and so forth)

other examples such as

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> <circle r="9"/> </svg>

might better belong in another page called "simplest examples"

Torture test discussion

Take a look at http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/svg/newstuff/Newlist.htm These are some of the examples developed for writing the book. By and large I think they should all work according to the spec, though in some cases, there remains superfluous code (javascript put in to draw axes and the like). Those examples, or the simple code illustrated in the various sections of the book, provide examples of code and pictures of what it [should] (I think) look like.