- From: Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:58:54 -0700
- To: www-svg@w3.org
I had an earlier response which seems to have been lost in the ether, however most of the points i mentioned have been covered in earlier response (By both Chris and David) On Apr 10, 2007, at 7:37 AM, Chris Lilley wrote: <snip> > So your point is well made, except for your "unecessarily > compressed" and "meaningless savings in space". In real world > usage, these are far from meaningless and far from unnecessary. > Additionally there are time efficiency concerns outside of data transfer. No matter how fast your XML parser is it will still be slower (due to recursion, memory usage, simple I/O) than the parser for SVG paths, it's an unfortunate, but nonetheless important fact. For simple paths this isn't a problem, but if you start looking at (for example) the SVG maps at http://www.carto.net/papers/svg/ samples/ the paths get very large - so parsing speed becomes a consideration. <more snipping> > > BD> But as I got more involved, I discovered that > BD> SVG is not as easy to handle as other XML languages, and > required a > BD> lot of extra unnecessary work. > > Extra work, agreed. unnecessary work, no. > Not necessarily extra work -- managing the construction (and repaint issues) of more elements is non trivial, anyway you can parse the path syntax in a (relatively) simple iterative loop. --Oliver > > > > -- > Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org > Interaction Domain Leader > Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group > W3C Graphics Activity Lead > Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG > > >
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 00:48:04 UTC