SVG: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Re:SVG: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly by pwdisswordfish6 on Friday February 12, 2021 @01:16PM (#26116663)

Because then you’d have to define its syntax and extension points. XML and namespaces solve that problem for you, so the only thing left for you to design is the actual structure of your data.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SVG: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly by wtetzner on Friday February 12, 2021 @01:39PM (#26116919)

Except that's not what happened. They also had to define new syntax for the DSLs they embed in strings.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SVG: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly by pwdisswordfish6 on Friday February 12, 2021 @01:47PM (#26117005)

True. But it would have been much harder if they had to define a syntax for the entire document.

I imagine they thought that the path DSL is simple enough to parse (and I seem to vaguely recall PostScript has something similar), while the overhead of representing path nodes as XML elements would be too high.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SVG: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly by wtetzner on Friday February 12, 2021 @02:24PM (#26117504)

I'm not arguing against using an existing format, BTW, just seems like a weird mixture here.

I can't help but think s-expressions would have been a better choice.

[ Parent | on HN ]