re: clarification: OpenDocument and SVG

> > Is it just me, but why they simply not reused SVG 1.1 elements as is
> > and simply add draw:* attributes when it's needed like this:
> >
> > <svg:rect x="2cm" y="3cm" width="10cm" height="20cm" 
> transform="rotate(45)"
> > draw:style-name="object-with-shadow" />
>
> I expect that would work, though the SVG spec does require that <svg:svg> 
> is the
> only SVG element that is permitted to be a child of a non-SVG element.  I
> wouldn't think having an embedded <svg:svg> for the drawing portion of the
> document would be particularly onerous though...

Yes, they also extended path p.337 and other similar stuff,
see Chapter 9 of the OpenDocument specs p.269-373

They also introduce 3D shapes representation, chapter 15, p.653.

Print/screen context and other useful stuff.

A short list of draw elements:
<draw:layer>
<draw:page>

<draw:rect>
<draw:line>
<draw:polyline>
<draw:polygon>
<draw:regular-polygon>
<draw:path>
<draw:circle>
<draw:ellipse>
<draw:g>
<draw:page-thumbnail>
<draw:frame>
<draw:measure>
<draw:caption>
<draw:connector>
<draw:control>
<draw:custom-shape>


A short list of draw attributes:
draw:id='ID'
draw:protected='boolean'
draw:display='always|screen|printer|none'
draw:name='string'  // page name
draw:style-name='styleNameRef'
draw:master-page-name='styleNameRef'

draw:corners='uint'
draw:concave='boolean'
draw:kind='full|section|cut|arc'
svg:points='points'
svg:x1
svg:y1
svg:x2
svg:y2
svg:cx
svg:cy
svg:r
svg:rx
svg:ry

etc.

> Regardless, I'm not sure the OpenDocument TC has any business assigning
> semantics to attributes in the SVG namespace that the SVG WG hasn't.

One of the thing, I saw from OpenDocument
is that EVERY attribute is namespace qualified.
So, therefore, it seems they reused SVG stuff
by qualifying it using svg namespace.

The other thing, I found is that attributes are kinda verbose such as:
draw:handle-range-x-maximum='30cm'

> > I think it would be very constructive to see what the OpenDocument 
> drawing
> > use cases are and find some common ground that would be constructive and
> > useful for both parties.
>
> It looks like the OpenDocument TC is talking to the SVG WG now, so 
> hopefully
> things will get ironed out.

Yup.

Ideally, OpenDocument drawings should be pure SVG 1.2 elements
with few OpenDocument attribute extensions unrelated to graphics or 
drawings.

Basically, we could see what extensions are needed to SVG
to fully support OpenDocument drawings.

If OpenDocument is widely supported in the future,
then if it use SVG 1.2 internally, then it's also good for a wider SVG 
adoption by itself.

Just a though.

Sincerely yours,
Fred.