On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Jeffry Houser <jef...@dot-com-it.com>wrote:
> On 3/14/2013 4:17 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > >> >> >> On 3/14/13 12:55 PM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 3/14/13 10:36 AM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> FWIW, the new framework I'm working on is probably going to be less >>>>>> >>>>> vector >>>> >>>>> graphic oriented and rely on bitmaps since I think bitmaps are how most >>>>>> things get "skinned" in html/js/css >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This really worries me. Are you saying that we dont want to support >>>>> FXG >>>>> >>>> in >>>> >>>>> FlexJS? >>>>> >>>> I eventually want to support everything, but time is of the essence, >>>> and I >>>> am going to prioritize stuff that we can get done quickly and that >>>> performs >>>> well. I'm not an expert, but I'm told that bitmaps work better in the >>>> GPU >>>> than vectors. >>>> >>>> It does not have to be an either-or choice. As I said, FXG supports >>> capability of skinning with just bitmaps. >>> >> I guess I don't understand what you mean. I've haven't seen too many FXG >> files, but what percentage are bitmap only? I don't think I've seen that. >> > > In my opinion; using "Bitmaps" in an FXG defeats the purpose of using a > vector format in the first place. Every FXG I've looked at inside the Flex > Framework does not use Bitmaps; but I've only looked at a handful. > > It is a common misconception that FXG is a vector-only format. FXG supports BitmapImage and a bitmap fill for any shape or path. In any case, most tools rasterize blends while serializing to FXG. I believe blends are a particularly hard to faithfully serialize to FXG (or SVG) Anyways, the point I was trying to is that FXG is a super-set of vector based flash skinning and traditional raster-based HTML skinning. Inline SVG with HTML5 is an option that is getting popular (give the overwhelming cross-browser support) and we must definitely take advantage of this. Thanks, Om
