Re: Bug in grammar for paths

> Paths of the form that I presented do exist and are actually common.  I wasn't around when the grammar was originally written, so I don't know the reason why it was written the way it was.

I'd venture to guess that the reasoning went something like this:1. the spec writers wanted a syntax more concise than PGML2. VML existed and had a syntax more concise than PGML3. if SVG went with the easier-to-parse required space/comma it would have been 
_less_ concise than VML
4. SVG chose concision over ease-of-parser-implementation
A link relevant to my speculation:https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/1999Jul/0013.html
-Jonathan

> Even if it is not expressed unambiguously in the grammar, this behaviour is explicitly described in the two paragraphs following the grammar.

> Paul