Lists Home |
Date Index |
firstname.lastname@example.org (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>Sometime soon we will have standards for parsing data content into
>typeable subelements: that will make life more straight forward for
>this kind of graphical-object-description language. Until then, we
>have to make up our own embedded little languages sometimes.
We do sometimes, but there are two large problems here that go beyond
the CSS style attribute format you noted:
1) The format here may change from trace to trace - see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-InkML-20030806/#traceFormat . They've
effectively created an extremely extensible datatype.
2) No XML equivalent is provided.
CSS has largely skipped (2) for historical reasons, but it's hard to
justify for new specs, especially given the variations supported by (1).
In the end, of course, InkML may not come to pass, as this tidbit in the
patent disclosures suggests:
We do have patent claims that we believe will be essential for the
implementation of the proposed W3C Specification and have chosen to make
them available to all on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, with
the potential for charging fees.
So I'll get back to work now. :-)