- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 09:40:43 +1100
- To: Juergen Roethig <roethig@dhbw-karlsruhe.de>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Juergen Roethig: > consistency with other cases is always a good argument for a change. > But in this case, I would have proposed to have a consistency to a > notation which is _readable_, and _intuitively_ _understandable_ by > _humans_ instead of allowing notations like "1.5.3-1,.2-.7e1.2.3" in > any case, meaning something like a sequence of six or seven numbers > (and even the experts in this thread were not consistent in their > opinion whether these are six or seven numbers). SVG should be a > language which is able to be read and understood (besides being > authored) by humans, not only by machines - otherwise one might > define SVG as a binary coded format instead of a textual one in > order to save some amount of bytes (if this might be the reason to > allow such horrible notations of sequences of numbers). While I am sympathetic, it is not just that we are changing SVG to allow a binary coded format just because it’s shorter; we are changing it to align with what implementations actually do. It would be much more difficult to change the other way. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Friday, 6 February 2015 22:41:10 UTC