HTML is there, other kinds of XML are avoidable. SVG is irrelevant,
cause nobody uses it.
Don't forget: you don't need to read XML specs to write working HTML.
On 10/19/13, Alexander S. <alex0player_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/10/18 Dmitrij D. Czarkoff <czarkoff_AT_gmail.com>:
>> Szymon Olewniczak said:
>>> Another advantage of XML is its adaptation. We've already have MathML,
>>> SVG and many many others[1] all build on top of XML.
>>
>> SVG and MathML are probably the best arguments against XML ever. I am yet
>> to
>> see two SVG libraries that would render sufficiently complex
>> spec-complient
>> SVG equally. And I have no hope for seeing any spec-complient SVG
>> rendering
>> library ever.
>>
>> MathML is yet worse. To save words: http://aiju.de/rant/XML/MathML
>
> I'd not agree that SVG render problems are due to XML parsing. I think
> it's just that anything that attempts to draw SVG according to a spec
> must be *very* capable, with all those filters and transforms and
> animations and ecmascripts. It might as well be a TeX extension, and
> we would have the same (actually, probably even more) problems.
>
>
Received on Sat Oct 19 2013 - 14:24:00 CEST