- From: Boris Dalstein via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:54:13 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
## Note 1
I lied, I've actually "very slightly" more than pure renaming. I've also expanded the following:
```
coord_4 ::= coord_2 cw? coord_2
coord_6 ::= coord_2 cw? coord_2 cw? coord_2
arcto_arg ::= unsigned cw? unsigned cw? coord cw flag cw? flag cw? coord_2
```
into:
```
coord_4 ::= coord cw? coord cw? coord cw? coord
coord_6 ::= coord cw? coord cw? coord cw? coord cw? coord cw? coord
arcto_arg ::= unsigned cw? unsigned cw? coord cw flag cw? flag cw? coord cw? coord
```
I think it's more readable like this.
## Note 2
Looking at the new grammar, it actually jumps out at me that the current grammar is bogus, and that this:
```
closepath ::= ("Z" | "z")
```
Should be:
```
closepath ::= ("Z" | "z") wsp*
```
Otherwise, you can't have a space between the end of a subpath `Z` and the beginning of the next subpath `M`, which seems allowed as per [SVG 1.1 grammar](https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/paths.html#PathDataBNF).
Seems like readability does matter.
I'm also not sure what's the point of the initial `moveto?` in the definition of `path`, but maybe I should look at it deeper.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by dalboris
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/751#issuecomment-555157311 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 18 November 2019 18:54:15 UTC