W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2004

Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: vector effects

From: Thomas DeWeese <Thomas.DeWeese@Kodak.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:46:30 -0500
Message-ID: <41A3A1A6.5000101@Kodak.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>, www-svg@w3.org, Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>

Ian Hickson wrote:

>>>Allowing those properties to take multiple values as well would 
>>>address this (and is how 'background' is being handled in CSS).

> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Dean Jackson wrote:

>>This has a number of problems.
>>
>>- It makes it much harder to use tools like XSLT.
> 
> That's an XSLT limitation, 

   What? That it can't easily parse an arbitrary syntax that
you come up with?  What can? It can parse the attribute it's
just hard to do because your syntax doesn't conform to
normal XML conventions for expressing complex data (SVG is
an XML grammar isn't it?).

> and should not restrict the SVG group from 
> making a good quality language.

    So much for the interoperability you were just arguing for
with the charset parameter[1].  You seem quite willing to argue both
sides of  a point when it suits you.

>>- It adds another micro-syntax to the language that implementers have
>>  to handle.
> 
> So does adding a bunch of new elements.

    Actually, this is something you don't seem to get that adding
new elements in XML is not a big deal and for anyone who is
comfortable with XML is _VASTLY_ preferable to a complex attribute
syntax.  It specifically doesn't introduce a new syntax that needs
parsing.  It does introduce a number of elements that need to
be delt with but it still avoids the need to write Yet Another Custom
Property Parser, that is so common with CSS.

---

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2004Nov/0438.html
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 20:46:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:52 UTC