"Garry Haywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- In svg-developers@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was talking about why is XML is better for SVG than any other mark- > up, yet your arguments focuses purely on non-human advantages, disregarding the human aspects which make XML a poor choice for SVG. the biggest is the must fail and not show anything under pretty much any error, this is great for machines, it's useless for humans, humans value content over accuracy, "an error occured parsing document X" is bad for a user, they get no value. If however they got the drawing but it was a bit wrong, they'd know it was wrong, but it might only be wrong in a way that didn't effect their access to the content. > particuarly if SVG is to grow into a mature rendering mark-up > that is part of a component based semantic web that replaces HTML, > eventually, because HTML needs to be more than just a rendering mark- > up. No, HTML does not need to be more than rendering, this is the exact mistake of pushing the meaning into the rendering, confusing the 2 does nothing to help. Indeed it's not clear that XML has much traction in the semantic web developments currently existing, the microformats are all in HTML, and RDF has many serialisations only 1 of which is XML > then SVG, as a mature UI rendering system should be too. That's not obvious, you're not going to say it's obvious that video or images are in XML, so why is it obvious that SVG is, or why the path syntax is a format rather than XML? > It is, in economic terms and within a > broad statistical framework, efficient for SVG to be in XML, as the > common rendering markup of the semantic web. I can't see that being so obvious, an XML format for video is not efficient, and the overhead of a seperate parser is certainly not going to enough to make it so, it is not obvious that it would be different for SVG. > And that so much RSS is broken hardly matters - its mostly terminated > anyway. It arrives at the final consumer and if it's broken but > consumable who cares? Not the consumer. They most certainly do care, if the rules of XML are adhered to over failure then the user doesn't get their content. If however the rules of XML are relaxed and errors are recovered, then we lose the benefits of XML in non-user centric languages. > However if your repackaging > data for forward use - like Reuters RSS feeds for example There are lots of people repackaging invalid RSS feeds, they're mostly ignoring the validity constraints of XML, I think this is a bad thing, XML has too many uses to be sullied in this way, but it will happen to all user-centric XML languages, as users care more about content than anything else. There's not an obvious alternative to XML for SVG, but the rules of XML are too strict for SVG. Jim. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/I258zB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/1U_rlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ----- To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" ---- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
