- From: Charles Lamont <charles@gateho.gotadsl.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 22:56:19 +0000
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Juergen Roethig wrote: > > 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). I agree. I suppose there will be an argument for allowing this for some unlikely use case where file size is at an extreme premium, so perhaps there is some way the spec can say that while it is possible, creating deliberately obfuscated code is not compatible with good defensive coding style. -- Charles Lamont
Received on Friday, 6 February 2015 22:56:57 UTC