- From: Bernhard Haslhofer <bernhard.haslhofer@cornell.edu>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:12:28 -0400
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>, "shannon.bradshaw@gmail.com" <shannon.bradshaw@gmail.com>, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
You asked for a solution for Shannon's use case, and for those SVG should work. But let me briefly respond to the other reasons you are mentioning: > I don't think this is a real solution for several reasons, primarily: > > * Doesn't work for non fixed pixel data (eg white border around text > on white reflowable page) I am not sure, if I correctly understand that use case, but if you mean sth like this (http://www.schepers.cc/svg/blendups/overlay/test/overlap.xhtml), then you see that it is possible. > * Would mean that everyone had to support SVG, making media fragments pointless Our custom CSS-in-RDF solution means that everyone has to support CSS parsing from an RDF graph. I don't see why SVGFragments make media fragments pointless. You can still use MF for use cases in which you don't need styling info. If you really need style, then, yes, you have to buy into SVG. I could also imaging to represent the fragments twice, once as simple media fragment identifier and once as SVG fragment. Then you gain the nice fall-back behavior that clients that don't understand SVG can at lest render the non-styled SVG fragments. > * Is worse for separation of concerns (semantic/presentation) than the > current proposal At the moment we define presentation-oriented information in a data/semantics-oriented data model, which means that concerns are not separated. If we "outsource" styling of fragments to standards that support this, such as SVG, then we don't need to introduce presentation-oriented properties / classes (oax:hasStyle, oa:style). So the definition of presentation-oriented information lives orthogonal to the definition of data/semantic-oriented information. I would say that the latter is a better separation of concerns. > * It's harder to ignore, as it's embedded within the SVG selector XML > rather than linked from the Annotation I don't see why it is hard to ignore information. > * It doesn't allow 'inverse' styles, important for things like medical > images, where you grey out the rest of the resource rather than > putting a semi-transparent colored area over top of the selected > fragment, distorting the visible information. I am sure that there will always be potential use cases for which CSS and/or SVG won't work and maybe additional fragments selector types need to be defined for them. It is hard to make judgments without seeing the use case without knowing the content and the annotations. But with SVG you can really do a lot; just look at Adobe Illustrator. > > Rob Bernhard
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 18:12:59 UTC