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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:29:39 UTC