- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:59:33 -0800
- To: steve@fenestra.com
- Cc: SVG public list <www-svg@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Steve Schafer <steve@fenestra.com> wrote: > It seems to me that you're trying to embed what is more properly handled > as SVG editor functionality into the base language. My personal > preference would be to keep the SVG representation itself as "lean and > mean" as possible, and put all of the interactive manipulation > expressiveness into a higher layer. I strongly disagree. SVG can be hand-authored just fine, but some features are impossible to use in practice, seemingly because they were designed with the same mindset you're espousing. If a format can't be hand-authored, it can't be reasonably hand-editted or hand-debugged either. As well, as Doug points out, this pulls SVG more in line with the model that authors are familiar with from HTML/CSS, where drawn boxes can be nested inside of each other. Beyond this basic correspondence, I think it's just plain easier to use - I can't tell you how many times I've started some portion of a drawing with a <rect> using x and y to position it, only to be forced to set it to x=0 y=0 and move the positioning into a <g transform> so that I can link its position with other elements. With this change, I'd be able to keep my original code and use the (imo more natural) x and y attributes to position things more often. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 01:07:33 UTC