W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2008

Re: should SVG 1.2T extensible metadata attributes be of type CURIE?

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:47:50 -0400
Message-ID: <48F021E6.9060908@w3.org>
To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>
CC: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>

Hi, Al-

Thanks for your feedback on this.  Our earlier discussion of this helped
inform the SVG WG's decision, and I think we are on the same page here.

I hope that the changes I made to the spec to address these comments
[1][2][3] also satisfy you.  Please let us know what you think.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0068.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0063.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0066.html


Al Gilman wrote (on 10/10/08 3:58 PM):
> Reference:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0052.html
> ** in a word: no
> The most crisp reason is a matter of short-term
> concern and language-lawyering technicalities.
> SVG 1.2 Tiny needs to progress rapidly up the rest of the
> Rec track.  Their implementation experience is in the bag;
> this Last Call was to double check the repair of a few
> substantive problems from the previous CR version.
> CURIEs are about to enter CR; they are unlikely to catch and
> pass SVG 1.2T in maturity grade.  So SVG 1.2T can't stand
> a normative dependency on CURIEs.
> Even over the long term, SVG should probably view things
> like @class and @rel/rev as derived from text/html and not
> from XHTML per se.  Thus the answer only gets to a 'maybe.'
> The CURIE spec itself warns against using CURIEs as the
> datatype in attributes with a pre-existing practice of
> plain-text token use.
> And 'no' for now is the only safe choice.
> Al
Received on Saturday, 11 October 2008 03:47:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:20 UTC