RE: [office] fo, svg, smil "compatible" namespaces

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

XLink appears to be profiled in a way that is contrary to that specification also.  As I recall, it has to do with the XLink policy about default values and the ability to have an XLink processor that independently handles XLink attribute occurrences in an element correctly.  I think there are also deviations in what the XLink attribute applies to.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 07:34
To: ODF TC List
Subject: Re: [office] fo, svg, smil "compatible" namespaces

Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 07/18/2011 09:30:57 AM:
> 
> Greetings!
> 
> This question is broader than the fo, svg, smil "compatible" namespaces 
> but it is a place to start the discussion.
> 
> As you know, elements and attributes in the "compatible" namespaces 
> share some but not all of the values, behaviors and semantics of those 
> elements and attributes in their native namespaces.
> 
> As part of ODF 1.3/ODF-Next, I would like to see the attributes and 
> elements of other namespaces used *as defined* in those namespaces.
> 
> In part it is a question of separation of concerns and expertise. I 
> assume that while we have members of the ODF Committee who are 
> conversant with fo, svg, smil, that the committees that maintain those 
> standards have deeper wells of expertise to draw upon.
> 
> It would make maintenance of ODF proper easier if we re-use standards 
> developed by experts in those areas, not to mention enabling 
> implementers to use a modular approach that selects libraries/engines 
> for those particular standards.
> 
> That re-use of other standards and software, however, presumes that our 
> usage is consistent with that of the standards we are invoking.
> 
> This is not simply a matter of convenience for the standards committee 
> but how this will affect current and future implementers of ODF. So I 
> anticipate discussion/debate on the various options before us.
> 
> Just to pose something to respond to, let me phrase the proposal as 
follows:
> 
> For ODF 1.3/ODF-Next (tbd) the elements and attributes in the fo, svg, 
> smil "compatible" names spaces should be reformed to be consistent with 
> their native namespaces.
> 

For sake of discussion, do you have some examples in mind where ODF 
defines these attributes in a divergent way?  I remember seeing that SVG 
"points" were defined as integers in ODF 1.1, but floats in SVG.  Is that 
the kind of thing you are thinking of?

> I am sure there are all sorts of variants but please take that as a 
> straw proposal for discussion purposes.
> 
> Hope everyone is at the start of a great week!
> 
> Patrick
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php