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

Re: [1.2T-LC] datatype (5.10.1) (ISSUE-2066)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:23:13 -0400
Message-ID: <48DA1511.2030908@w3.org>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
CC: www-svg@w3.org

Hi, Dr. Olaf-

Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote (on 9/23/08 9:44 AM):
> Doug Schepers:
>> As with 'typeof' and the rest of these metadata attributes, 'datatype'
>> is not intended
>> to affect rendering or execution of the element. It is left
>> intentionally loose to allow other formats (RDFa, Microformats) to
>> define what the relationship is, but I agree this could use some
>> clarification about use.  We will discuss how we can tighten this up
>> with that other group, to be as clear as possible without being too
>> restrictive.
> Maybe some (informative) references may help authors too to
> find a way to use it. 
> Because if it not understandable, how this is defined and authors
> have to use a search engine to get some results, what the purpose
> of those attributes might be, if there is not more than a 'secret' existence
> in the document or the DOM, there is a pretty good chance, that
> almost noone understands the purpose and usage ;o)
> Obviously this might not be an easy task to reference something
> reliable, if some formats have no normative recommendation, but then
> it might alreay help to have one or too examples of such constructions,
> already having any effect on any viewer.

Excellent suggestion.

I've incorporated some of this thread in the current draft. [1]  Please
take a look and let me know if this clarifies matters.  Any further
suggestions that might help would also be most welcome.

> If in this case the other format is intended to specify the '(an)other
> attribute', isn't it necessary, that authors have to provide a namespace
> or something to indicate, which format specifies this, if there is more than
> one? Else the result will always be somehow plurivalent and arbitrary 
> and therefore typically not understandable for anyone else but the 
> author and therefore most authors might think, it is not worth the trouble
> to use it at all...

With the informative reference, do you still think there's a problem?

Please see also the wording on "metadata attributes" for more details. [2]

[1] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/struct.html#Core.attrib

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 10:23:47 UTC

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