[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
It isn't meant to be condescending. I was shown
a 3D SVG created for a customer that wants 3D.
I mean simply, SVG remains 2D. Keep in mind that web
technologies are adopted for non-web applications.
If I understand your mail, the implementor chose
the wrong language. X3D could be a better
choice for that particular application based
strictly on what the customer asked for. It
becomes a problem if the customer then demands
that the 3D version be considered a standard
and presses hard in their own community for
that without understanding the 80/20 philosophy
espoused by the SVG community. Do you think
the mainstream of the SVG community has the
same opinion about SVG being 2D only and
feature-complete?
len
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin.berjon@expway.fr]
> I am wondering if and when SVG the language will
> be extended.
It has been extended. Yes, it's trivial to do for simple things, and
might get harder if we're talking about complex 3D shapes. Thus far I've
seen little demand for elaborate 3D in SVG, and given that there are
other existing efforts such as X3D I don't see a good reason for adding
those features to SVG. As it stands, it is imho almost feature complete.
The rest just needs a slightly better extensibility framework.
> SVG gets a lot of press, has some very good
> authoring tools, etc., but remains 2D animation.
"remains" sounds a touch condescending to me. It is 2D, that's what it
set out to be, and it does it very well. Given the complexity of moving
from 2D to sufficiently elaborate 3D, and that the better part of what
one does on a terminal is 2D, I think it hits the 80/20 mark far better
by sticking to 2D.
|
