- From: Jeremie Patonnier via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 14:39:06 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
I totally agree with you that a shorter grammar definition would be helpful to spec implementer. It took me three iterations banging my head on a wall to start having a reasonable understanding of the path grammar. I would love to have seen issue #751 earlier to avoid that 😋. FWIW I would support a shorter, cleaner, version of the grammar either in the next iteration of the SVG Spec or within the dedicated [Path Spec](https://svgwg.org/specs/paths/). For that fix, the first suggestion I made was a direct inspiration from SVG 1.1, but I really like your suggestion to shorten this PR. However, I'm not super at ease with nesting parenthesis. This is one of this case that make things a little harder to process for a human brain (at least, mine) I was considering something like this (yes, still an additional symbol): ``` svg_path::= wsp* (moveto wsp* drawto_command_group*)? drawto_command_group::= (drawto_command wsp*)+ ``` There is also the option to add a `wsp*` symbol at the end of each command definition and simplify the grammar to: ``` svg_path::= wsp* (moveto drawto_command*)? ``` -- GitHub Notification of comment by JeremiePat Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/pull/778#issuecomment-593983789 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2020 14:39:08 UTC