- From: Boris Dalstein via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:53:13 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
I completely agree with the fact that optional whitespaces are widely used. In fact, I'd say that SVG images containing them is probably the majority. But I'd argue that minifiers use them "just because they can", not out of real necessity. Also, like trailing decimal, we could add a note to the spec saying that user agents may still accept those. And more to the point, if they choose to be strict and reject them, they should only do so for images explicitly marked as SVG 2.x, so it wouldn't break any existing content. Tools generating SVG 2.x content would trivially update their code to make spaces mandatory (it's less code to make them mandatory than optional). In conclusion, making whitespaces mandatory in the spec, while having UAs be robust in case of missing whitespaces, could be a smooth long term transition to having getting rid of them without breaking anything, and eventually be able to unify CSS and path-data syntax. What I see as an important question, however, is: are there use cases where the gain of compactness actually matters to the point where some authors would genuinely miss the feature? I think optional whitespaces can somesave up to 25% of file size in an SVG, which isn't nothing.This is harder to answer, and I think not knowing is what would make me hesitant to make such change. New content generetors(e.g., minifiers) wanting to createwould be invalid. Like for However, I'm not sure isn't a useful "feature" as in: "people would miss it" -- GitHub Notification of comment by dalboris Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/752#issuecomment-557520640 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 22 November 2019 12:53:15 UTC