- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:48:46 +0100
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Cc: public-cdf@w3.org
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 CSS. 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 mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 14:48:52 UTC