re: svg is too complex

>> The stylable svg is well designed and can be implemented by small teams.
>> The exchange svg has no real purpose to exist in my opinion. I'm still
>> waiting for concrete arguments about that spec (except those which only
>> consider the CSS syntax instead of the XML syntax).

I would agree that Exchange SVG has not been sufficiently justified.  I
would advocate dropping it.  

In fact, rather than continue increasing SVG's complexity,  I would advocate
putting some effort towards simplifying the current definition.  However, I
doubt that this will happen.  I do not believe simplicity has ever been a
concern in the definition of SVG.  Over the last year, there have been a
number of postings to this list concerning the need for a parser within an
XML parser to handle constructs such as path data, style information, etc.
We see the same issues raised with each update to the spec.  We also see the
same response: it is not likely to change.  I can only conclude that
regardless of the negative feedback on spec bloat and unnecessary (or
unnecessarily complex) features, SVG is likely to continue on its current

Russ Shotts 
Senior Software Engineer
Jasc Software, Inc.

Received on Thursday, 9 March 2000 12:25:44 UTC