W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Reusing a subset of SVG in another standard

From: Peter Junge <peter.junge@gmx.org>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 09:27:11 +0800
Message-ID: <4DC1FCEF.9090905@gmx.org>
To: Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com>
CC: www-svg@w3.org
OUCH, sorry my fault. Here's the public link:

Am 05.05.2011 09:18, schrieb Rick:
> 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
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 01:27:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:24 UTC