- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 07:06:13 +0000 (GMT)
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote: > Yes, all that stuff is still in there. It was not designed by SVG > authors so much as by SVG implementors, particularly some big names in Implementors usually don't have accessibility in mind, but rather adding more gimmicks to sell on fashion. It's relatively easy to create freeware convertors from existing static vector formats to SVG, or additional file export modules for commercial products, so the real business for the suppliers is in authoring tools that support the more sophisticated features, like animation. I've had a long standing impression that HTML is resisting commercial interests whereas SVG is pandering to them. > the Mobile industry. So, clearly, they think the features both have > value and are implementable. The mobile industry, in particular, has an interest in encouraging new types of communication with increasing bandwidth requirements. > Animation is seen as a key requirement, even for Tiny - static > graphics are not too interesting for cellphones. If the minimum profile has animation, there is definitely a need for a smaller profile. From my point of view, when I first heard of SVG, it made sense as a filling a long standing gap by allowing line drawings to be represented properly on web pages, but it is being driven by a desire to compete with Flash. People have argued that it has applications that Flash is not used for, but I think that mainly reflects that Flash is known to decision makers, who use it for Flash intros, etc., whereas SVG is more known to technicians. Maps were once used as an example of non-cosmetic SVG, but I've seen German street maps in Flash.
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 02:15:52 UTC