- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:04:35 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org, peter.junge@gmx.org
David Woolley: >I would have thought that the way that would best match the original XML >concept would be to define a profile of SVG, then use the actual SVG >namespace. > >That allows an SVG aware tool to extract and render it without having to >know anything about UOML. Yes, the SVG WG could allow something like this CURIE construction to use an IRI/URI as baseProfile value for such purposes to reference something that defines, what the subset is. This could be an option for other formats that use a subset of SVG as well, like ODF and simplifies work for authors, who want to write SVG documents compatible with such subsets. If a list of profiles is possible, this could indicate as well, if an author uses a newer module and not just SVG 1.1 or SVG tiny 1.2. Therefore a formal mechanism for the attributes version and baseProfile to add such information could be pretty useful to indicate, what is required to interprete the document properly. Else it will be the question anyway, how to use such modules, if they become recommendations before there is a base recommendation, that includes them all. Olaf
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 09:05:05 UTC