W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2001

RE: Human readable? semantic web and SVG 1.1 /2.0

From: <ronan@roasp.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:25:55 +0200
To: "Robert Diblasi" <rdiblas@wpo.it.luc.edu>, <www-svg@w3.org>

?Robert Diblasi compared
?<path id="path_5" d="M 100 100 L 300 100 L 200 300 z"
?        fill="red" stroke="blue" stroke-width="3" />


?<path fill="red" stroke="blue" stroke-width="3" >
?              <pathData>
?                      <moveto>
?                            <x>100</x>
?                            <y>100</y>
?                      </moveto>
?                      <lineto>
?                            <x id="change_this_x">300</x>
?                            <y>300</y>
?                      </lineto>
?                      <lineto  command="closePath">
?                            <x>200</x>
?                            <y>300</y>
?                      </lineto>
?              </pathData>


I think that it would be pretty to have the second example above describe
SVG drawings, but I am of the opinion that it would be totally useless. Just
look at the ratio of data to text. in your simple example.You're sending 10
data tokens and using some 250 characters(? I didnt count exactly). Let's
not forget that SVG is meant to be machine-readable, not human-readable.

We don't expect people to read through bytecode or binary.
In the same way, XML is not intended for human-interpretation. What's the
point of tripling or more the bandwidth and processing time dedicated to I/O
because an infinitessimal percentage of the users might care about the

You're not intended to be reading the source for this stuff, and it's a
dream to think that there could possibly be a non-specific interpreter for
SVG or any other XML language. The fact that it's XML is intended as a
familiar container. That still doesnt change the fact that you need to know
the DTD to generate an app to interpret SVG.

So what's the usefulness of improving readability nominally at a high cost
in verbosity?


?Chris, Tobias, Mike, Jon, Peter, others.....before SVG 1.1 or SVG 2.0
?goes too far.....I think it would be nice to address these issues
?again please :-)
?By the way how do I submit a suggestion to SVG 1.1 /2.0 working
?a little rant from the mind of an XML idealist :-)......The semantic
?web can work if we give it a chance!!......but for it to
?work ....need to describe everything idealy........not try to shove
?all information into one attribute because it makes file
?smaller........really throwing SVG into question as a XML
?format....path data really is just a flat file formate in an XML

?How come path attributes (commands) can not be described both
?declaritivly and in the form path commands are in now? I do not see
?the problem.....and can only come up with solutions.......
?We all learn by sharing what we know
?Robert A. DiBlasi
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 18:27:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:51 UTC