- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferraio@Adobe.COM>
- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 09:47:06 -0800
- To: Apu Nahasapeemapetilon <petilon@yahoo.com>
- Cc: "Håkon" Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-svg@w3.org
At 07:23 AM 3/8/00 -0800, Apu Nahasapeemapetilon wrote: ... >SVG is different from most other W3C specs in that >it won't be browser-makers that implement the best >viewers -- it will be graphics companies. These >graphics companies don't also have access to a ready >stack of other web-related technologies. Apu, I certainly agree with your points about how SVG requires bringing in whole sets of other technologies in order to implement the entire specification, which makes implementation a very large task. However, while implementing SVG is no small task, I'm not sure things are quite as bad as you point out. Many of the non-graphics technologies required to process SVG are available, such as off-the-shelf XML parsers. At this stage, Adobe has succeeded in implementing the vast majority of the SVG spec both in an static graphics editing tool (Adobe Illustrator), a dynamic graphics editing tool (Adobe LiveMotion) and in a browser plugin. Implementing the SVG spec in and of itself was indeed quite a bit of work, but nothing like than the level of effort needed to implement support for (for example) the HTML side of the web world. And SVG's re-use of other W3C technologies has allowed Adobe (as one implementer) to share large amounts of code across engineering efforts. And I guarantee it will be much easier for people starting work today as there is more and more off-the-shelf software that can be deployed, rather than having to write everything from scratch. Jon Ferraiolo SVG Editor Adobe Systems Incorporated
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2000 12:45:02 UTC