xml-dev - RE: What is wrong with SVG?

["Don Park" <donpark@docuverse.com>]

Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
...
>*if* the file is read into a *generic* DOM it will easily be 
>overwhelmed by a large number of nodes. Thus:
...

I can certainly identify with this argument but I am not
sure if the balancing point chosen by SVG WG is the ideal
one.  For example, instead of

  <path d="M 100 100 L 200 200"/>

more structure [and verbosity] version like

  <path><M>100 100</M><L>200 200</L></path>

or

  <path><M/>100 100<L/>200 200</path>

It would be nice to see some data on the "compelling size reduction."

Another question I have is why attribute was used instead of content
text?  Is it because of some browser legacy problems raised when
embedding SVG data islands in HTML?  Perhaps it is to prevent possible
'disruption' in the path data by other node types (i.e. comments, PI,
etc.).

A separate issue is whether there was adequate representation in the
SVG WG for the 'middleware' community.  Most WG members seems to be
either SVG editor or viewer publishers.

Lastly, I want to make it clear that I did not start this thread to
kill or delay SVG.  I am doing this because I prefer open discussions
over 'send in your comments' approach to peer review.  I believe we
will have simpler standards and wider application of those standards
if the peer community has greater influence on the standardization
process.

Best,

Don Park    -   mailto:donpark@docuverse.com
Docuverse   -   http://www.docuverse.com


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************