[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Microsoft and vector graphics (Was:XDocs and XForms?)

• To: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Subject: Re: Microsoft and vector graphics (Was:XDocs and XForms?)
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:02:25 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• Organization: Expway
• References: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C1061BAA48@r...> <3DAFB819.2060907@p...>
• Reply-to: robin.berjon@e...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Paul Prescod wrote:
> Joshua Allen wrote:
>> ...  The lack of viewers which are hosted in the web browser should 
>> not be seen as lack of capability, but simply lack of volition in the 
>> absence of any compelling reason to hook the viewers up (so long as 
>> Adobe ships a sufficient viewer)
> 
> I think that you and I have very different use cases for SVG. I'm not 
> looking for a vector graphic rendering platform. It's cool for that and 
> was designed for that, but I just don't have problems that require that. 
> I'm looking for a dynamic, graphical rendering platform. For that I need 
> the full suite of specifications implemented in the Adobe viewer: SVG, 
> JavaScript (built-in implementation), XLink, SMIL, DOM events, etc. Many 
> people are building apps on this "dSVG" platform and most only run on 
> the Adobe implementation.

I don't think that contradicts what Joshua says (or if it does I have a 
problem because I agree with both of you ;). Yes, the most interesting 
part of SVG is when you use the complete family of specs: you get a 
complete and modern graphical toolkit that's extremely powerful and 
rather easy to use. Currently, it's true that the only serious option 
(that I know of, on the desktop) is Adobe's Viewer (Batik in some cases, 
with a heavy biprocessor and ~2gigs of ram). I think however that were 
ASV to disappear tomorrow, it wouldn't be long before an open source 
gorilla would get into gear and implement a complete viewer. One good 
place to start would be to finish the Mozilla implementation (because 
it's guaranteed to be portable, and you have a lot if not most of the 
technologies you need already done). Another place would be KDE which 
already has Konqueror and kSVG.

> Implementing "dSVG" is in fact a pretty big task -- it is on the order 
> of difficulty of building a dHTML renderer and how many people have done 
> that?

Not that many, but imho enough that a viewer would be implemented rather 
fast should a strong need arise. I think we will see complete 
implementations other than ASV some time in 2003.

-- 
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE  8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488

• References:
  • RE: Microsoft and vector graphics (Was:XDocs and XForms?)
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
  • Re: Microsoft and vector graphics (Was:XDocs and XForms?)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
• Next by Date: Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
• Previous by thread: Re: Microsoft and vector graphics (Was:XDocs and XForms?)
• Next by thread: line-ends and char refs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread