- From: Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:08:51 -0700
- To: Bill Dwyer <themadcreator@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3c.org
- Message-Id: <B0A6E35C-9E9B-43DB-B38A-F2E76487F4B0@apple.com>
Hi, > Why is this a problem? > Consider the perspective of the language implementer (i.e. someone > who write a program to parse and/or modify SVG). .... > This means I can no longer use a simple string tokenizer, but > instead have to write a state-machine style parser. This totally > violates the purpose of an XML language. XML grammars are not about > saving space! They sacrifice meaningless savings in space for the > benefit of ease-of-use and ease-of-implementation. Space isn't the only reason for some of the SVG language definitions, it needs to be possible (within reason) to parse and render documents quickly (remember modern web engines are measuring page render times in milliseconds) XML (even with a fast parser) is still slow to parse, especially compared to something as concise as the path definition language defined by SVG, so it's not efficient from a runtime point of view (more mark up means more IO, more complex parsing) -- although i admit it could be less efficient from the perspective of writing an implementation. > So what is my recommendation? > Simple: Create an XML grammar definition for paths and other > arbitrary string formats such as style. It would be much easier to > parse the language of it the grammar included something like: > I think that does look perfectly reasonable, and were it not for my the above efficiency reasons something along those lines would be not necessarily be bad --Oliver
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 00:48:05 UTC