Alexander S. said:
>> 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.
>
> I'd not agree that SVG render problems are due to XML parsing.
Neither do I. The XML-related problem with SVGs is that every library
has its own view on splitting the data between tags, attributes and
values. I had a couple of sessions of hand-editing SVG files to get them
displayed properly, though from metadata it was obvious that files were
generated by software.
SVG software sucks really dramatically by the way. It is not uncommon to
find an SVG that can be reduced to third of its size without data loss.
hiro said:
> SVG is irrelevant, cause nobody uses it.
It is used quite a lot, actually. Wikipedia is full of SVGs, and it is
definitely the most common vector graphics format on the net. (Well, PDF
is more common, but it is rarely used for vector graphics, I believe.)
> Don't forget: you don't need to read XML specs to write working HTML.
HTML isn't XML. Valid XML parser isn't valid HTML parser. They tried to
make HTML a strict subset of XML - XHTML Strict - but it didn't make it.
--
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Received on Sat Oct 19 2013 - 17:53:15 CEST