W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: [1.2T-LC] datatype (5.10.1) (ISSUE-2066)

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:44:22 +0200
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200809231544.22333.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

Doug Schepers:
> Hi, Dr. Olaf-
>
> Thanks for your comment.
>
> Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote (on 9/22/08 1:51 PM):
> > it is defined in 5.10.1:
> >
> > **
> > datatype = "<string>"
> >
> > The 'datatype' attribute specifies a datatype for the plain text
> > attribute value of another attribute.
> >
> > Animatable: yes.
> > **
> >
> > My questions about this:
> > - the value of which (an)other attribute?
> > - how can the author specify this (an)other attribute?
> > - if it is not intended, that the author specifies this,
> >   who does it, when, where and how?
>
> As with 'typeof' and the rest of these metadata attributes, 'datatype'
> is not intended
> to affect rendering or execution of the element. It is left
> intentionally loose to allow other formats (RDFa, Microformats) to
> define what the relationship is, but I agree this could use some
> clarification about use.  We will discuss how we can tighten this up
> with that other group, to be as clear as possible without being too
> restrictive.
>

Maybe some (informative) references may help authors too to
find a way to use it. 
Because if it not understandable, how this is defined and authors
have to use a search engine to get some results, what the purpose
of those attributes might be, if there is not more than a 'secret' existence
in the document or the DOM, there is a pretty good chance, that
almost noone understands the purpose and usage ;o)
Obviously this might not be an easy task to reference something
reliable, if some formats have no normative recommendation, but then
it might alreay help to have one or too examples of such constructions,
already having any effect on any viewer.

If in this case the other format is intended to specify the '(an)other
attribute', isn't it necessary, that authors have to provide a namespace
or something to indicate, which format specifies this, if there is more than
one? Else the result will always be somehow plurivalent and arbitrary 
and therefore typically not understandable for anyone else but the 
author and therefore most authors might think, it is not worth the trouble
to use it at all...

Olaf
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 14:06:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:40 GMT