Re: Reusing a subset of SVG in another standard

Unauthorized: Access Denied

Is it open?  i.e. is there a way to see the standard without paying?

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Peter Junge <peter.junge@gmx.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> let me start with a very brief introduction, my name is Peter Junge and I'm
> the editor for a standard called UOML that is hosted at OASIS.
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uoml-x/download.php/41616/UOML-X-Part1v1.0-wd02-rev01%28revisedByErrataCD02%29.pdf
>
> UOML defines an abstract model for --what we call-- visual documents
> (documents in static print layout) and an interface language for this model,
> that can access and manipulate visual documents. (NOTE: UOML is not a
> document storage standard in itself.) For historical reasons (UOML is over a
> decade old and originated from China) the abstract document model of UOML is
> not based on SVG, but defines an own set of graphical objects, that are
> widely compatible with SVG.
>
> In order to harmonize UOML with existing standards, we are currently
> thinking about redefining UOML Graphics Objects with a subset of SVG. (Using
> SVG completely would not work at the moment for a couple of reasons, but is
> considered for the long term.) 'SVG subset' means both not using all of
> SVG's elements and not using all specified attributes for SVG elements. We
> are basically discussing two alternatives and would like to get the opinion
> of the SVG WG which on is preferable:
> 1) The first alternative would be to redefine UOML Graphics Objects using
> SVG syntax and semantics, but keeping them within the current UOML
> namesspace, e.g.'uoml:rect' or 'uoml:circle'.
> 2) The second alternative would mean going one step further by also defining
> an internal SVG compatible namespace for UOML. OpenDocument Format e.g. is
> also using a subset of SVG by defining it's own svg namespace
> (xmlns:svg="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:svg-compatible:1.0").
>
> Hence my question, which solution would the SVG WG prefer?
>
> Best regards,
> Peter
>
>



-- 
Cheers!
Rick

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?

 - Epicurus

Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 01:19:10 UTC