- From: Peter Junge <peter.junge@gmx.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 09:27:11 +0800
- To: Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
OUCH, sorry my fault. Here's the public link: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41616/UOML-X-Part1v1.0-wd02-rev01%28revisedByErrataCD02%29.pdf 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