FYI, we seem to have sparked some needed discussion...
----- Forwarded message from Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@...240...> ----- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:20:29 +0100 From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@...240...> Reply-To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@...240...> Subject: Re: [office] [Fwd: clarification: OpenDocument and SVG] To: Michael Brauer <Michael.Brauer@...678...>
* Michael Brauer wrote:
this is not the case on the element level. Reusing attributes from SVG is considered to be very reasonable by our TC, because SVG is a widespread and established standard already. However, we face the problem that, if we want to reuse attributes from SVG, we need to reference them from our own schema, although the attributes themselves are contained in anonymous or per-element partition namespaces.
(Note that www-svg is a public mailing list for SVG discussions, people on the list do not necessarily represent the SVG WG.) The cited example:
<draw:rect svg:x = "2cm" svg:y = "3cm" svg:width = "10cm" svg:height = "20cm" svg:transform = "rotate(45)" draw:style-name = "object-with-shadow" xmlns:draw = "urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:drawing:1.0" xmlns:svg = "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
is semantically equivalent to
<qenj:erpg fit:k = "2pz" fit:l = "3pz" fit:jvqgu = "10pz" fit:urvtug = "20pz" fit:genafsbez = "ebgngr(45)" qenj:fglyr-anzr = "bowrpg-jvgu-funqbj" xmlns:qenj = "hea:bnfvf:anzrf:gp:bcraqbphzrag:kzyaf:qenjvat:1.0" xmlns:fit = "uggc://jjj.j3.bet/2000/fit"
which is semantically equivalent to
<x/>
unless you define something else. So you would have a specification that defines how user agents are expected to process a svg:width attribute on a draw:rect element. In that specification you could as well call the attribute { "file:///usr/bin/dahut", "largeur" } or { "", Breite" }, or whatever you like. From a specification point of view there is nothing to be gained from calling it { "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg", "width" }. So there is no actual need to use the SVG namespace (or any other name- space) to refer to "SVG attributes" and whether there is a benefit is quite questionable in my opinion.
Using "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" does however limit the ability of the SVG Working Group to define what {"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg", "width"} means in a specific context, in particular, if the SVG WG defines some- thing that is not compatible with the definition of the OpenDocument XML format, integrating the OpenDocument format with SVG would be difficult as you have to remove the ambiguity.
As far as I can see, unless one considers familiarity with the string "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" of any importance (like, easier to type/ remember than e.g. urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:drawing:1.0), there is not really much point in using the SVG namespace, or in fact any other namespace. Why not call it { "", "width" } instead?