Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Robin Berjon <robin@k...> writes:
> At 00:35 20/04/2001 +0100, Al Snell wrote:
> >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Anders W. Tell wrote:
> >> However a number of reasons exists
> >> - Using string syntax enhances the readability.
> >> - Size, SVG path strings are more compact.
> >> - DOM bloat, large DOM trees could be created.
> >>
> >> Of course the question is if these arguments are valid...
>
> Readability is imho a valid argument. XPath as it is is more readable than
> any XML equivalent (this is not a comment on the quality of the XML
> representations that have been submitted here and elsewhere, they serve a
> different purpose and I'm already using Matt Sergeant's excellent
> representation in some projects).
>
> Size otoh is not really a good argument. Gz-compressed SVG is really small
> (smaller than the other vector graphic formats that I've benchmarked it
> against), and it wouldn't be much larger if paths used markup instead.
> However, SVG paths wouldn't be much more humanly readable as markup than
> they are as strings so that point is pretty moot in the context of SVG
Disagree -- if they used markup I could use XSL(T) on them, which I
would really like to do!
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@c...
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
|
