Christian Lippka - Sun Microsystems Gmbh - Hamburg wrote: >>> 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. > Then you apparently forgot svg:d.
> 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. > I agree. Only that in the case at hand, it's largely irrelevant if you name it svg:width or draw:width or odf:width, because all the cases where this is used in the spec do spell out the semantics explicitely. So you're not even saving (significantly) in spec size; on the other hand, by using your wording, people got lured into believing ODF would be interoperable with svg, which it definitely is *not*. > 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. > What does that have to do with the problem at hand? Pointing at the neighbour's lawn didn't make our own lawn nice & tidy by itself. I wonder why you consistently refuse answering the bulk of my postings; then again, this is largely getting off-topic here ... Cheers, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
