Re: ODF 1.2 and SVG

Hi, Folks-

Great discussion and points for feedback, thanks!

SVG has built up more momentum lately, and I think we can make a more 
compelling case for them to adopt it as-is.  They can still support 
their patchwork approach for legacy, but could transition to proper SVG 
integration, especially if we consider adding bits to SVG that they 
think are missing (the "connector" is one such thing the SVG WG has 
already considered adding, and I'm very interested in a data-binding model).

The tone of the RFC email Andreas pointed to seemed to be open to 
radical solutions, so I think it's worth investing a bit of energy into 
getting them to change.  There are even sympathetic voices within IBM we 
could appeal to.

So, it would be useful to start compiling a list of arguments, and maybe 
even setting up a campaign, for true SVG integration in ODF.  Thoughts? 
  Suggestions?

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

Robin Berjon wrote (on 2/26/09 1:03 PM):
> On Feb 26, 2009, at 15:31 , Chris Lilley wrote:
>> In fact they contacted us and we asked them to not do that, but to put
>> them in their own namespace, since they are using them in a way not
>> defined by the SVG spec.
>
> Yup, I recall that. But since they didn't listen then, is it likely
> they'll listen now? Is there a way of courteously pointing out that we
> thinking their work is valuable and would like to comment, but would
> rather not spend the time and energy if they don't plan on being any
> better than Microsoft at using open standards?
>

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:44:00 UTC