- From: G. Wade Johnson <gwadej@anomaly.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:32:18 -0500
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, www-svg@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:16:02 +0100 Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 2009, at 12:48 , G. Wade Johnson wrote: > > Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > > Why would it? Unlike HTML, SVG is _defined_ to be XML and the above > > is not well-formed. > > > > That seems to be a large part of the disagreement. > > As explained several times before in these threads, it is > _currently_ defined to be XML. But there is no reason to be married > to that. So, again, if SVG is currently defined as XML, why would a current tool read something that is not well-formed XML. I'm sorry if this comes off as confrontational. But, I've spent a lot of time cleaning up crap that was supposed to be XML (and HTML) that was passed off with the comment "Why not just change your parser?" G. Wade -- There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. -- C. A. R. Hoare
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:33:06 UTC