Just so that people have an idea what we are talking about, here is a little content.xml I made from making a little drawing with a couple of images in it, and saving as a .odg. You can see the mix of namespaces, with svg providing most of information with svg:something tags, while the main OO.o drawing objects remain as <draw:something > tags.
True, svg: is provided with their own schema, but it is -so- similar. The majority of mapping should be trivial, and the things where we fail, we can just document.
bob
mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting "Jon A. Cruz" <jon@...18...>:
But, Jon, the content.xml file of a .odg is like 90% svg. The guys on the list who are discussing svg+images in a .zip are basically describing .odg.
But...
that last 10% is the killer.
Actually, ODG is 0% SVG. They've simply got their own schema which (mostly) happens to parallel SVG but is not semantically identical. Given some of the specific features they wanted, it was not such a crazy decision.
It used to be that they were using the SVG namespace for this, which was nuts, but they sorted that out after I referred them to the SVG WG.
-mental