RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe

Kynn,

Given the choices of what is available _now_ I would still argue that
both/either SVG and/or CSS is better than textual graphics.

Adobe has 2.0 beta version available.  I tried it, but I couldn't see any
differences.  I did find a disclaimer noting that the 1.0 version was NOT
fully compliant with the W3C specs for SVG.

Kynn, you could probably learn more about SVG than I know in less than an
hour.  I took a look at URL
<http://www.adobe.com/svg/viewer/install/svgtest.html> the test page they
link to from their download site.  As expected, if I tried changing the code
fragment:
	<EMBED NAME="SVGTest" WIDTH="234" HEIGHT="212"
SRC="/svg/svgfiles/svgtest.svg">
to	<EMBED NAME="SVGTest" WIDTH="468" HEIGHT="424"
SRC="/svg/svgfiles/svgtest.svg">
The image was four times as big, with no loss in quality.  (I added
	<base href="http://www.adobe.com/svg/viewer/install/">
to the HEAD of my locally saved file so this would work.)
I also tried
	<EMBED NAME="SVGTest" SRC="/svg/svgfiles/svgtest.svg">
But that just got me something tiny.  No surprisingly, IE would not let me
stretch the graph.

I saved the SVG graphic locally to my hard drive and reloaded it.  No
handles.  Couldn't resize it.  I was a little larger, but not much.
Presumably something like Adobe Illustrator (which natively handles SVG)
would provide that kind of features.
I looked at the file with NotePad.  On of the first lines is fairly telling:
<svg xml:space="preserve" width="3in" height="2.9in" viewBox="0 0 234 212">
As I understand it, preserve refers to the keeping the text arrangement
relative, width and height is native size, and viewBox is what is initially
shown of the graphic.  I am unclear as to why it is not hazardous to mix
units (inches and pixels) like this.  Presumably, relative units could be
used.  (I tried this, and it worked, but using "larger" feature of IE did
not grow the graphic.)

Obviously, it is not hard to image a browser or utility that would allow the
resizing of SVG elements.  You are quite correct that the tools aren't here
for this yet.  But, again, I must point out that these problems are less
significant that the obstacles imposed by an abundance of graphical text.

Personally, owing to the need for a viewer plug-in, I would be hard pressed
to argue that SVG is ready for prime time.  I am optimistic that the next
round of browsers will change this.  (I think I mentioned in an earlier post
that Netscape Navigator 6 missed this opportunity.)  I am quite sure that
Adobe got on the SVG wagon solely to compete with MacroMedia and Flash.
Coding in html 4.0 strict wasn't really practical until the browsers caught
up.  XML and CSS are well supported enough that they are both practical
already.  Things will improve very quickly.

We (and other lists) have had this chicken-and-egg debate for quite a while.
Should one code to standards or to the capricious behavior of what's
popular?  Being both idealist and practical, I've tried to strike a balance
-- which until relatively recently meant 3.2 or 4 transitional was a much as
I cared to push it.  Lately I've been trying for strict and adding CSS.
It's hard because Navigator 4 is quite popular here -- and it is SO
non-conformant.  So I am stuck with the CSS that it handles correctly.  I'm
trying to pick up SVG because I think it will be important soon.  In the
meantime, I keep pushing the ideas which are practical -- like all the P1s
and a few select P2s.

I am still hoping that some SVG junkie on this list will respond...

-- Bruce


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 2:49 PM
> To: Bailey, Bruce
> Cc: 'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe
> 
> 
> At 11:51 AM 12/20/2000 , Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>> Kynn, you are complaining about version 1.0 software!  
> Things will get
>> better!
> 
> But we being told to use SVG _now_.  So I'm confused as to why
> SVG is desirable _now_.
> 
> I'm sorry, was I being realistic again?
> 
> --Kynn

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 16:54:32 UTC