- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:25:26 +0100
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Cc: 'Bjoern Hoehrmann' <derhoermi@gmx.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, dean@w3.org
Mark Birbeck wrote: >Bjoern, > > > >>Also note that SVG >>does not use RDF/XML for meta data, unlike XHTML 1.x or XHTML >>2.x SVG is an extensible format and you are free to decide >>how to encode additional information in SVG graphics... >> >> > >Just because you can use any language you like, doesn't make it extensible. >Since you have no way to know what language is being used, then I don't see >how it could really be called 'extensible'? > >Perhaps if there was an attribute to indicate the type of the metadata, you >could say it was extensible. Something like: > > <svg> > <metadata type="application/rdf+xml"> > <rdf:RDF... > </metadata> > </svg> > > > I think the rdf:RDF itself achieves just this... > > >>..., you can >>use RDF/XML, you can use a well-designed "microformat", you >>can even use Notation3 if you like. >> >> > >I guess so, although section 21.2 advises the use of XML (although the DTDs >don't seem to enforce it): > > Metadata which is included with SVG content should be specified within > 'metadata' elements. The contents of the 'metadata' should be elements > from other XML namespaces, with these elements from these namespaces > expressed in a manner conforming with the "Namespaces in XML" > Recommendation. > > Seems reasonable. RDF's great and all, but loose coupling between specs is also valuable. As defined, it would allow any new version of RDF/XML syntax (eg. RDF/A) to be plugged in, without rev'ing the SVG spec. Dan
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2005 16:25:04 UTC