[tei-council] image encoding comments

[Syd Bauman]

> SVG is a standard for describing vector graphics. As a side effect,
> it also defines <svg:image> to pull in bitmaps; but this is by no
> means the raison d'etre of SVG. Inclusion of an external bitmap is
> a low-level function which all document markup languages define. 

We may need to agree to disagree, here. I think that, from a markup
language's point of view, yes, pulling in an external bitmap image
(and giving you an XML handle on it) is exactly one of the things SVG
is for. 


> It would be perverse not to follow suit.

So this is the "everyone else has reinvented the wheel, so we should
too" argument?


> tell that [that <svg:image> is not that much harder to use than
> <tei:graphic> to DTD people :-}

OK: DTD people, listen up! <svg:image> is not that much harder to use
than <tei:graphic>.

Of course, that's easy for me to say, I'm not likely to be the one
who has to change roma so that it properly incorporates the SVG DTD,
changing all the element names to "svg:blah".


> It was pointed out that separate @xscale and @yscale attributes
> might be appropriate. Some would add a "rotate" attribute.

Hmm... I'm of half a mind that even the current height=, width=, and
scale= attributes are about the styling of the output, and thus sort
of outside our scope. On the other hand, the convenience factor of
having them is pretty significant.

(But if it exists, the scale= attribute of <graphic> should
permit values greater than 100%, shouldn't it?)