- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 17:05:36 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
I will say this much: If there are any changes in the path grammar (relative to [SVG 1.1](https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/paths.html#PathDataBNF)) that do not have matching changes in the prose, they were probably un-intentional. Many of the errors probably come from trying to change from BNF to EBNF, to reduce the number of different syntaxes used throughout the SVG spec. BTW, the original commit was https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/commit/23bebc27ec3f3bbd6f3428fc5df2ff2cc9800d9d by @nikosandronikos . The one referenced above was simply copying & pasting between the SVG 2 Paths chapter and the SVG Paths Level 3 module. @tshinnic If you are able to draft a correct EBNF that actually matches the prose, that would be a huge benefit. Unfortunately, the SVG WG does not technically exist right now, so there won't be an updated W3C draft any time soon. But some of us still have write permissions on the repo, so we could review a pull request and update the Editor's Draft (which is automatically built from the master folder of the master branch of this repo). -- GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/325#issuecomment-307577842 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 10 June 2017 17:05:42 UTC