Re: Question about Stylable SVG

I think Apu is absolutely right.  SVG was really starting to come
together, until now.  The specs were looking good and alot of people
were putting alot of time and $$$ into supporting it, writing viewers,
product planning etc.  Sure it has a few short comings in font/text
handling but wow what a great first stab at something the net could
really use right now.  As an implementer my two cents worth is this -
Don't try to make this everything to everyone right now.  We don't all
have the deep pockets and teams of engineers to implement SVG now,
unless that is the intention of certain members on the SVG commitee.

Start with something a little simpler, give it a chance.


Apu Nahasapeemapetilon wrote:

> >From the spec:
>   Because Stylable SVG requires the use of a styling
>   language before rendering properties can be attached
>
>   to graphics elements, and because Stylable SVG
>   allows arbitrary styling languages to be used,
>   Stylable SVG is not suitable as a self-defined,
>   fully-contained language format for guaranteed
>   interoperability.
>
> The question is, who has the expertise to build a
> good SVG viewer now?
>
> Microsoft and Netscape have good web browsers, so
> hopefully they will have the technology to process the
> latest "arbitrary styling language." But neither of
> those companies are known for leadership in graphics
> technology.
>
> Adobe, Macromedia and Corel are leaders in graphics
> technology. But these companies don't makes web
> browsers, so they are unlikely to have technology that
> normally belongs in web browsers, such as ability to
> parse the latest "arbitrary styling languages."
>
> The complexity of SVG has gone up quite a bit with
> this latest version of the spec. It is now not
> possible
> to implement a viewer with a reasonable amount of
> effort. The CSIRO and IBM viewers will probably be
> left in the dust.
>
> If you do not agree with the above, then that
> automatically means Exchange SVG serves no purpose!!!
>
> Exchange SVG will probably die a natural death
> any way. Here's why: Most SVG pictures on the web will
> be Stylable SVG. Customers will evaluate tools based
> on whether they are able to open Stylable SVG or not.
> If you are a tool maker then you'd better be able to
> open Stylable SVG. Or your competitor who can will
> put you out of business.
>
> Two types of SVG files will cause consumers a lot of
> confusion. If a product says it can open SVG files,
> customers will not know exactly what that means. Some
> products that advertise the ability to open SVG files
> may not really be able to open the customer's SVG
> file, which will lead to frustration to the customer,
> which will in turn lead to reduced acceptance for SVG.
>
> It certainly is nice that SVG works well with, and
> leverages other web standards. But although this is
> nice, this is not practical.
>
> My suggestion is to have only one SVG. This SVG should
> not be overly complex. The number of languages a SVG
> Viewer is required to implement should be limited --
> preferably only one! Thus the effort required to
> implement a SVG Viewer will be finite, and SVG will
> work well as an interchange format as well. Companies
> that have expertise in graphics, but no expertise in
> web technologies will be able to leverage SVG too.
>
> Two SVGs is a terrible idea.
>
> Thanks for listening, and I hope I have been able to
> articulate what many others are no doubt thinking.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com

--
Christopher C. Boothroyd
CTO

Intense Software
#310 - 3495 Cambie Street
Vancouver, BC
Canada
V5Z 4R3

Phone: 604-331-4435
Fax: 604-685-2550
Toll-Free: 1-888-251-3586
www.intensesoftware.com

Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2000 01:38:09 UTC