Re: View Source

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:38:05 +0100
Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Mar 19, 2009, at 00:15 , Jeff Schiller wrote:
> >> Allow me to put it another way. Would you rather 1) SVG be  
> >> *sometimes*
> >> produced in a tag-soupish way and see massive adoption; or 2)
> >> stay strictly
> >> XML and stagnate at the adoption level it has today (which means  
> >> it'll phase
> >> out, notably from handsets)?
> >
> > The way you have phrased this as a simple two option choice, it
> > seems you believe that SVG's XML syntax is the only thing holding
> > SVG adoption back.
> 
> No, again, this is in the context of putting SVG in HTML. The

[snip]

> > So where is the evidence that HTML-izing the syntax WITHOUT adoption
> > by the majority of deployed browsers is the 'silver bullet' to mass
> > adoption?
> 
> There is no silver bullet, but HTML-ising is on the critical path
> for implementation and adoption. There is no doubt that people want
> rich interactive vector graphics in their browsers, just looking at
> the number of graphics related efforts in JS libraries makes that
> clear. They could use Flash and yet they don't, which indicates that  
> Silverlight isn't going to interest them either. They use canvas but  
> there are limitations to it for a large number of use cases. So  
> there's no doubt that there's demand for SVG, we just need to clear  
> the critical path — that's all I'm proposing.

We all would like to see more adoption of SVG, and I think we can agree
that your argument is based on a sincere belief that this "relaxing" of
the strictness of SVG would help.

My concern is that inconsistency in SVG handling between HTML+SVG
and strict SVG applications could hold us back. Thinking back to the
early years of CSS, many people refused to use it because there were
inconsistencies in the way browsers dealt with it. Many people decided
that it was hopeless early on and it took years to change that view.

If someone can't grab a piece of SVG from one place and slap it down
somewhere else, there's a strong probability that they will decide the
technology is "broken".

It seems that we are all concerned about the same issue and just see it
in different ways.

G. Wade
-- 
It is wise to remember that you are one of those who can be fooled some
of the time.                                       -- Laurence J. Peter

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 12:17:37 UTC