Hi, I just dig this app. Good work.
However, I have some problems with the new rdf metadata tags when storing plain svg in 0.39. It seems that no namespace declarations are present for rdf, dc and cc. Adding them to the top fixes the problem, but it's really a hazzle when you have some 30 figures in a thesis. :)
I added these:
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
You probably know this already, but if not.. Well.. Jimi needs valid xml!
Inkscape rocks! (more than sodipodi :))
On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 08:27, Øyvind Hvamstad wrote:
I added these:
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
You probably know this already, but if not.. Well.. Jimi needs valid xml!
Hmm, this is an interesting one. We didn't know, in fact.
Is this only when saving in "Plain SVG" format?
-mental
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 02:27:45PM +0200, ?yvind Hvamstad wrote:
However, I have some problems with the new rdf metadata tags when storing plain svg in 0.39. It seems that no namespace declarations are present for rdf, dc and cc. Adding them to the top fixes the problem, but it's really a hazzle when you have some 30 figures in a thesis. :)
I talked to mental about this briefly over chat and opened a bug report for it. I've attached his comments there...
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=993294&gro...
Having rdf: elements without declaring the namespace URI for this prefix is obviously a bug. We must either drop the elements or add the declaration. By the way the declaration may reside right in the rdf:metadata element, it doesn't have to necessarily be at the top level.
Generally, "plain SVG" makes sense in two situations: when you need to save some space, or when you have to deal with some old non-namespace-aware XML technology. The first consideration is legitimate, but as for the second, the best you can do is upgrade. In fact, I know of only one such technology: DTD, and it's really better left to die a peaceful death by now. XML Schema, Schematron, and other new schema languages are so much more powerful, and they won't have any problem with foreign-namespace elements.
Having rdf: elements without declaring the namespace URI for this prefix is obviously a bug. We must either drop the elements or add the declaration. By the way the declaration may reside right in the rdf:metadata element, it doesn't have to necessarily be at the top level.
Generally, "plain SVG" makes sense in two situations:
when you need to save some space,
this case could/should be covered by SVGZ and or Mobile/Tiny SVG
or when you have to deal with some old non-namespace-aware XML technology. The first consideration is legitimate, but as for the
My perception of 'Regular SVG' has always been to take it as being a promise not to include any (Sodipodi or) Inkscape specific markup.
- Alan
when you need to save some space,
this case could/should be covered by SVGZ and or Mobile/Tiny SVG
This should be possible _in addition_ to saving as plain SVG.
or when you have to deal with some old non-namespace-aware XML technology. The first consideration is legitimate, but as for the
My perception of 'Regular SVG' has always been to take it as being a promise not to include any (Sodipodi or) Inkscape specific markup.
Yes, and I'm thinking about _why_ this may be needed, and can only think of the two reasons above.
On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 20:01, bulia byak wrote:
Yes, and I'm thinking about _why_ this may be needed, and can only think of the two reasons above.
IMO, the most fundamental (if not most common) reason is to yield an SVG document which will validate against the SVG DTD.
Having elements in any non-SVG namespaces would (afaiK) prevent that.
Of course, I'm not really sure most folks care about DTDs much anymore, given they don't play well with namespaces in general.
-mental
participants (5)
-
Alan Horkan -
bulia byak -
Kees Cook -
MenTaLguY -
Øyvind Hvamstad