[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Edd Dumbill on SVG
- From: Max Dunn <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 19:58:11 -0700
> I pushed the Macromedia folks at WEB 2001 to support
> SVG (and SMIL).
Thank you! Tell them it is the sooner the better... nothing wrong with
Flash, it's just the .SWF part that sucks. Replace that with SVG - See:
> I'd love to see Microsoft support it.
They have to. How could they not? They support .pcx, Paradox,
WordPerfect from 8 years ago, every proprietary format you can name. It
would look too suspicious.
SVG is such an obvious format for vector graphics, it's already a great
format over .swf or whatever *before* taking into account its XML
> Those two hopes may mark me as a ridiculous
> optimist, but SVG is really cool stuff.
I don't think that's optimistic. Then again I'm one of those absurd
people that thinks XSLT will be used on the client...
> There's been some concern expressed that SVG is not
> too far off from XSL-FO (as in Formatting Objects
> Considered Harmful ), but I'm happy to see a
> solid vector graphics-based presentation language
> using an XML vocabulary.
 - http://www.myopera.com/people/howcome/1999/foch.html
Yes, that's a valid concern (though he notes that over current graphic
formats SVG is a step up), and again it's something that client-side
XSLT can help with.