--- In [email protected], Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andreas Neumann wrote: > > yes, path is definitely the way to go for maps. > > > > With path elements you can also combine several disjunct polygons in > > one element and have holes. Both are very common in mapping and GIS. > > It seems clear that there's a space advantage to using a few paths > rather than many polygons. Is there a speed advantage as well?
that's probably implementation specific. I don't expect much difference between rendering a path or a polygon. I assume that most implementations use only "path" internally since many graphics libraries only offer paths anyway. With paths you can represent all other basic shapes. The reasons why the basic shapes exist in SVG are semantic reasons and to make it more convenient for content developers. I am pretty sure that most rendering engines are optimized for path usage and that most SVG engines translate the basic shapes to paths internally. Andreas ----- 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/
