I don't think that the format of the map would change the requirements or the use cases. An embedded SVG map would be covered under 2.2.5, and a stand alone SVG map wouldn't be. And a caveat to both, annotating the entire stand alone map is covered under 2.1.*, just not segments of it. Rob On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>wrote: > What if the map is in SVG? Wouldn't that cause it to fall here, since > SVG is part of HTML5? > > Leonard > > From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> > Date: Friday, March 14, 2014 at 10:53 AM > To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> > Cc: W3C Public Digital Publishing Mailing List <public-digipub@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Comment re > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-dpub-annotation-uc-20140313/ > Resent-From: <public-digipub@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Friday, March 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM > > > Hi Art, > > There are no use cases /specifically/ about maps, but annotating a > digitized image of a physical map or born digital image would be covered > under 2.2.4. This assumes the map is embedded in a larger publication > rather than being a stand-alone resource. I agree there isn't a use case > that directly covers "annotate part of a non-text/non-html publication". > This would also help with annotating data use cases that were brought up > on the Community Group list. > > Thanks! > > Rob > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote: > >> Given there are no UCs for resources such as maps, perhaps the title >> should qualify its scope by adding "... for [Digital] Publications"? >> >> -Cheers, AB >> >> >
Received on Friday, 14 March 2014 15:19:05 UTC