W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2000

RE: What is wrong with SVG?

From: Don Park <donpark@docuverse.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:51:54 -0800
To: "'Jon Ferraiolo'" <jferraio@adobe.com>, <xml-dev@xml.org>, <www-svg@w3.org>
Cc: "'Arnold, Curt'" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
Message-ID: <000201bf87d7$b7679300$d1940e18@c1033339-a.smateo1.sfba.home.com>
Jon ferraiolo wrote:
>In the spirit of fostering communication, I'll attempt to
>address some of questions.

Thanks Jon.  I appreciate your participation in this discussion.
I have some remaining questions and a response to your negative
assessment that the path syntax change is highly unlikely.

1) SIZE ISSUE

  While I can sympathize with the WG's concerns over size, I am
  puzzled as to the size difference between:

    [1] M100 200L200 100              - 16 chars

  and

    [2] <M/>100 200<L/>200 100        - 22 chars

  or

    [3] <M>100 200</M><L>200 100</L>  - 28 chars

  While [1] saves about 42% over [3], [1] saves only 27% over [2].
  While this might still seem to be a significant saving, the saving
  drops even further as data to command ratio and data value size
  increases.  For example:

    [4] C133.67,217.00,137.00,218.33,137.00,218.33

  over

    [5] <C/>133.67,217.00,137.00,218.33,137.00,218.33

  which results in only about 7% saving in size.

  Perhaps I missed something.  Does the WG's assessment of the real
  size saving resulting from the current approach differ from these
  numbers?  

2. ATTRIBUTE ISSUE

  You did not go into reasons for using attribute instead of content
  text for path data.  Because SVG uses attribute for path data, it
  had to create custom interfaces for accessing the content.  What
  were the compelling reasons that justified these costs?

>However, the particular subject of the <path> element has been debated
>many times in the past and, at this stage, for better or worse, given
>the degree of debate that has already occurred in this area and the
>very late point that we are at with SVG, it is highly unlikely that
>the path syntax will change.

I am disappointed by this.  Am I to understand that the nature of the
W3C's 'Last Call' is addressed to the W3C member companies only and
not to the public?  If so, then I must conclude that the SVG spec
is not a standard for general public.  I would appreciate some
clarification on the real nature of W3C's Last Call.

Best,

Don Park    -   mailto:donpark@docuverse.com
Docuverse   -   http://www.docuverse.com
Received on Monday, 6 March 2000 20:50:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:18 GMT