W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2012

Re: [css3-images] Image Fragments and SVG URIs

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:15:11 +0200
To: www-svg@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <201207061015.12390.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
~fantasai:
...
>
> I'm going with the theory that Media Fragments supercedes the SVG spec
> in this respect, since Media Fragments does not co-opt any existing SVG
> fragment syntax and is defined to work for all image formats, of which
> SVG is one. Therefore a new SVG version is not needed for MF to work on
> SVG images.
>
> ~fantasai

As others already mentioned, the Media Fragments PR already excludes
this, it contains a section, that clarifiies, that especially SVG has already 
its own syntax. SVG explictly specifies, how such views into documents
work, this practically excludes other options - if other formats are silent
about this, I think, for them it does not exclude, that the Media Fragments 
PR may apply.
Of course, it is not wrong to add this #xywh=... to a URI of an SVG, but
it simply has no meaning for the interpretation of the SVG document,
because it is explictly defined, what kind of strings after the # have
currently a meaning for the interpretation of an SVG document.

Therefore such examples using the syntax of Media Fragments PR
will become meaningful for a new SVG version, if this specifies, that
Media Fragments PR applies. If this is for example SVG 2.0, the description
of the CSS example using this syntax has to contain the information, that
this only applies to documents conforming to SVG 2.0 ff), for 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
still only the original SVG syntax applies. If the document indicates, that
a specific version is used, nothing can supersede this (except of course
the (wrong) interpretation of such documents with viewers ignoring such
version indication, buth this applies only for the interpretation, not for the
question, whether something is applicable or correct interpretation - 
interpretations are always subjective, the audience should not trust in the
interpretation of a viewer. 
This is the advantage of versioning, one always knows, what applies 
and which interpretation is right and the author has the option to
explictly mention what is intended, what cannot be superseded by
newer recommendations, whatever they say ;o)

Olaf
Received on Friday, 6 July 2012 08:15:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:56 GMT