W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2004

Re: [SVGT12 Comment] SVG Tiny review

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:08:08 +0200
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <41a23c4a.569364142@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>8. Support for meta information
>
>I believe the group should be considering the meta module (for which 
>we are adding role) as a module to both SVG 1.2 Tiny and SVG 1.2.
><http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-metaAttributes.html#s_metaAttributesmodule>http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-metaAttributes.html#s_metaAttributesmodule

The draft already notes that, unlike XHTML 2.0 as currently drafted,
SVG including SVG Tiny allows adding meta data through elements and
attributes from foreign namespaces, so if your only concern is to
specify meta data in SVG graphics (as opposed to functionality that
might derive from such meta data) you can do that already in a well-
defined way. Depending on the use case SVG's meta data mechanisms
might be even easier to use and implement than what is proposed for
XHTML 2.0, embedding RDF for example allows authors to re-use well
known syntax which seems much easier to use to me than what XHTML
2.0 proposes.

In fact, I can't think of something that is possible with XHTML 2.0's
meta data facilities that is not possible using the RDF/XML syntax,
so it seems to me that XHTML 2.0's syntax would need to be "better"
than embedding plain RDF in the document in order to be considere
 for inclusion (redundant inclusion) and I am not convinced that this
is the case. And even then this could be added through SVG's extension
mechanism unless you want that these features can be used from within
the SVG namespace (or in case of attributes in no namespace).

So maybe you could provide some detail on how you think considering
this draft meta data module might improve SVG? It might make them
more consistent and authors might be able to re-use existing idioms
if they know XHTML 2.0 and start using SVG, but I generally think
that XHTML and SVG have too little in common to make this useful.
Received on Friday, 17 September 2004 20:08:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:55 UTC