- From: Jon Frost <jonfrost2020@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 07:57:23 -0500
- To: David Leunen <leunen.d@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:57:59 UTC
I see, thanks. I was wondering if that was one of the primary concerns. I was thinking/hoping that something like requestAnimationFrame for svg-replicate would help to mitigate that issue (requestReplicationFrame) or some other similar feature. I am a bit out of my league here though as I have not work on any browser implementations yet. David Leunen <leunen.d@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Jon Frost <jonfrost2020@gmail.com> wrote: The declarative syntax of 'svg-replicate' is concise and intuitive and seems to get the job done, and it has been on the plate for some time. It would be good to at least heard some counter-arguments articulated if someone has the time. It is not scalable. That's the main counter-argument I think. It denies the first letter of the acronym. I don't really know how it'd compare to another spec, performance-wise.
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:57:59 UTC