Re: Re-using SVG components

Right, this is roughly in accord with my further thinking.

Specifically, it makes sense to be able to rely on the description being
available with the object that we get from a library. This also fits nicely
with the Authoring Tool Guidelines.

Are there widely-used XML tools that have no idea how to use an xlink as
transcluded? I don't imagine so. In which case it is not smart to suggest
that people encourage their existence by finding ways to make them work.

Charles McCN

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Chris Lilley wrote:

  Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  > The benefit of having the desc defined within the symbol is that it reduces
  > teh amount of work required, and provides a simple mechanism to ensure that
  > people can use well--described graphic elements from libraries. 
  > The benefit
  > of having it as a sibling for a use element is that it is easier to write a
  > player that does not need to dereference the URI of the use element. 
  I have no idea what you mean by that. How can a symbol be used without
  fetching it?
  Besides, these descriptions would be different. One is the description
  of a symbol; the other is the description of one usage of a symbol.
  > But it
  > seems like that would only really apply to a generic XML renderer that used
  > a style sheet to render some textual content, and make no use of Xlink.
  The former is possible and desirable, the latter is not a good idea.

--Charles McCathieNevile  
phone: +1 617 258 0992
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA

Received on Wednesday, 29 September 1999 14:10:17 UTC