[odf-discuss] Rick Jelliffe suggestions for ODF supporters

[Daniel Carrera]

marbux wrote:
> Here is an extract from ISO/IEC:26300, one of the extracts that Jesper
> also quoted on his blog:

Yes, let's look at it:

> The attribute draw:stroke-linejoin specifies the shape at the corners
> of paths or other vector shapes, when they are stroked.

Look here. See the namespace? The attribute is draw:stroke-linejoin so 
the name-space is 'draw' not 'svg'. I talked about this one in my 
*first* post. I showed it as an example. You replied to that post. Did 
you not notice? This is an attribute in a different name-space. The 
attribute is similar-but-different from the SVG one, but it does not 
purport to be the SVG one. It is in a different namespace. You said that 
ODF extends the SVG namespace. It does not. Any features in ODF which 
are not in SVG (for example, the additional values of 
draw:stroke-linejoin) are in a different namespace.

This is an important point. It means that if you take an ODF drawing and 
remove everything that is not in the 'svg:' name-space, what is left is 
valid SVG. The draw:stroke-linejoin attribute is in the draw: namespace.


> You are of course correct that the mischief was done in a non-SVG...
> namespace

Well, at least you have recognized that this is not in the SVG 
namespace, contrary to your earlier assertion. Whether it is mischief is 
your opinion.

> How would Daniel Carrera propose to extract the image and transform
> it to SVG without data loss?

Ah, good question. I readily agree that there are things that can be 
expressed in ODF that cannot be expressed in SVG. Consider 3D drawings. 
SVG is strictly 2D. How can we convert 3D images to SVG? To my 
knowledge, we can't. Does that alone mean that ODF extends SVG?

Consider three hypothetical examples:

1. Format-A can express spread sheets and uses SVG for 2D images. It 
adds new tags and attributes in another namespace for the things SVG 
cannot do.

2. Format-B can express 3D images, and uses SVG for 2D images. It adds 
new tags and attributes in another namespace for the things SVG cannot do.

3. Format-C can express 2D images with properties that SVG cannot 
express. It adds new tags and attributes in another namespace for the 
things SVG cannot do.

4. Format-D can express 2D images with properties that SVG cannot 
express. It adds new tags and attributes in the same namespace as SVG.


In all of the above cases, the format contains things that SVG does not 
contain. In all cases, any transformation to SVG would have data loss. 
Which one(s) of these do you consider acceptable? Which ones do you 
consider unacceptable? Which ones do you consider an extension?


> But to reiterate. I am not an "ODF supporter."

Indeed.

> My participation in this conversation ends right here.

Ok, no problem.

Daniel.