W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2009

Re: View Source

From: G. Wade Johnson <gwadej@anomaly.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:32:18 -0500
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, www-svg@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090318073218.23af9800@sovvan>
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:16:02 +0100
Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Mar 18, 2009, at 12:48 , G. Wade Johnson wrote:
> > Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> > Why would it? Unlike HTML, SVG is _defined_ to be XML and the above
> > is not well-formed.
> >
> > That seems to be a large part of the disagreement.
> 
> As explained several times before in these threads, it is
> _currently_ defined to be XML. But there is no reason to be married
> to that.

So, again, if SVG is currently defined as XML, why would a current tool
read something that is not well-formed XML.

I'm sorry if this comes off as confrontational. But, I've spent a lot
of time cleaning up crap that was supposed to be XML (and HTML) that was
passed off with the comment "Why not just change your parser?"

G. Wade
-- 
There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. -- C. A. R. Hoare
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:33:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:41 GMT