Re: [WICD] comments

On Monday, March 6, 2006, 2:52:30 PM, Bert wrote:

BB> I don't need to include SVG, PNG, MP3 or anything else, only MathML. (I 
BB> admit, CSS is rather convenient, too; but that's easy, because it was 
BB> designed to be included).

SVG was designed to be included, too.(PNG was not, not has anyone
suggested it should be included inline).

BB> In fact, I'd rather *not* include those other formats, even if it were 
BB> possible. Transclusion is easier and more flexible. The content can be 
BB> reused and I don't need to include SVG and PNG parsers in my HTML 
BB> parser.

An SVG parser is called an XML parser :) and PNG is as mentioned not
under discussion here. Luckily XHTML is also XML, which means that only
one parser is needed. Same for MathML, only one parser. So the parsing
is not an issue, except for non-XML formats such as HTML'classic' and

BB> I think the term generally used is that embedded content should 
BB> be be a "first class object," which roughly means it has to have a URL.

I refer you to the description of secondary resource in AWWW; secondary
resources can also have URIs.

BB> There are very few cases where including one format in another is 
BB> desirable.

Thats a matter of opinion - for example you mentioned including CSS
inside other formats, earlier on.

BB> My advice: Forget about compound documents by inclusion, it is complex, 
BB> contrary to the Web architecture and unnecessary(*).

Its not contrary to Web Architecture, and its becoming apparent that
some things - such as event flow, property inheritance and scripting -
are in fact easier with inclusion than they are by reference.

 Chris Lilley          
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 14:48:52 UTC