W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [Moderator Action] Reusing a subset of SVG in another standard

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 11:51:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4DC1761C.1020103@w3.org>
To: Peter Junge <peter.junge@gmx.org>
CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Hi, Peter-

Could you please resend this to the publicly-writable SVG mailing list, 


Peter Junge wrote (on 5/4/11 11:48 AM):
> (In case I'm writing to the wrong recipient, I would really appreciate
> to be pointed in the right direction)
> Hi,
> let me start with a very brief introduction, my name is Peter Junge and
> I'm the editor for a standard called UOML that is hosted at OASIS.
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uoml-x/download.php/41616/UOML-X-Part1v1.0-wd02-rev01%28revisedByErrataCD02%29.pdf
> UOML defines an abstract model for --what we call-- visual documents
> (documents in static print layout) and an interface language for this
> model, that can access and manipulate visual documents. (NOTE: UOML is
> not a document storage standard in itself.) For historical reasons (UOML
> is over a decade old and originated from China) the abstract document
> model of UOML is not based on SVG, but defines an own set of graphical
> objects, that are widely compatible with SVG.
> In order to harmonize UOML with existing standards, we are currently
> thinking about redefining UOML Graphics Objects with a subset of SVG.
> (Using SVG completely would not work at the moment for a couple of
> reasons, but is considered for the long term.) 'SVG subset' means both
> not using all of SVG's elements and not using all specified attributes
> for SVG elements. We are basically discussing two alternatives and would
> like to get the opinion of the SVG WG which on is preferable:
> 1) The first alternative would be to redefine UOML Graphics Objects
> using SVG syntax and semantics, but keeping them within the current UOML
> namesspace, e.g.'uoml:rect' or 'uoml:circle'.
> 2) The second alternative would mean going one step further by also
> defining an internal SVG compatible namespace for UOML. OpenDocument
> Format e.g. is also using a subset of SVG by defining it's own svg
> namespace
> (xmlns:svg="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:svg-compatible:1.0").
> Hence my question, which solution would the SVG WG prefer?
> Best regards,
> Peter

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, WebApps, and Web Events WGs
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 15:52:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:13 UTC