On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 12:37, Stuart Brown wrote:
>  Am I out of line here (pun wholly intended)? Whilst no mathematician nor
> a graphics guru, I find that SVG's path= solution to almost all conceivable
> vectors is comparable to putting CSS in an attribute rather than using FO.
> The vocabulary may more compact than a host of elements and attributes, but
> the atomic values are not obtainable directly through the XML infoset (at
> least until we have XPath2 in its full datatype-aware glory): it's just
> another vocabulary in an XML wrapper.
quite. the original SVG spec did this right, by having every coordinate
pair in an element, but the old-style folks screamed
"performance" and "readability", and made them change to this
"PostScript in a bun" notation. I hope history judges them harshly.
Sebastian Rahtz OUCS Information Manager
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431