Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Other than that, it would help this kind of argument if you'd start
answering to my question; why you'd expect a user wanting to change
all those arcane svg attributes, while at the same time you don't
allow that for e.g. the SMIL stuff?
Exactly, like every where else in ODF we borrow from other standards
like fo or svg.
Except that you didn't borrow from svg, you copied the names &
changed the semantics.
Wrong. We actually did both and that is exactly how xml works. If it has
the same semantics
then use the same name. If it does have the same semantics but different
restrictions, name it
somehow else. For this we use different namespaces. So it is not only
valid to say that ODF
is based on open standards like svg, it is exactly how xml is supposed
to work. If there is a
standard that fits your needs, use it. If you need more, extend it. If
you need something else,
do your own but don't re invent what is already there.
Even if it is not perfect yet, the beauty of ODF is that people sat down
and thought about
the format instead of just dumping a 1:1 version of their in memory
representation like MS
did.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
