On 3/14/13 1:02 PM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Don't PhotoShop and Illustrator output SVG as well? What is it about FXG
>> that is a must-have especially if you are targeting HTML and not Flash?
>
>
> This implies that I need to decide on the target (HTML vs. Flash) before I
> even start designing the skin for the app. Is that what you expect
> developers to do with FlexJS?
Nope, I think they should just choose SVG, and FlexJS and its compiler
should try to convert it into Flash assets when running on Flash. Frankly,
I'm not sure if it has to do a great job in terms of fidelity or
performance. For most folks, the end goal is to get a great HTML/JS app.
The SWF version is so you can develop and test as much as possible before
cross-compiling.
>
> My point is that we have tools that create FXG, we have AS code that can
> work with FXG. I believe it is a more efficient approach run with FXG and
> make it work with HTML/JS. The end result would make the SDK users that
> much happier.
The AS code that works with FXG probably uses a lot of Flash APIs, so it
can't be cross-compiled efficiently to JS. If you can write an efficient
FXG renderer on the JS side, please do so.
>
> On the flip side, you have not convinced me that we should drop FXG.
I am not trying to convince you to drop FXG, I am just saying that I would
rather write code to support SVG instead and may do so after I get bitmap
skinning working. IMO, every year, fewer and fewer new releases of tools
will output FXG unless we can show the world a reason it is better than SVG.
But again, you or anyone is welcome to write the FXG support, and I will
welcome it.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
