On 3/14/13 3:14 PM, "Om" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/14/13 1:02 PM, "Om" <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
> Right, except that when the user chooses the SVG route, that eliminates
> support for older browsers.
Are you planning on writing FXG support for older browsers?
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> If I may suggest an alternative approach, I would use the SWF version to
> support older browsers. Remember, Flash Player for Desktop is still very
> prevalent.
You are welcome to code up what you think is ibest.
>
> For the newer browsers that support do support inline SVG, we can convert
> FXG to SVG and we have a viable non-swf alternative. This is a more
> future-safe approach, IMHO.
This web-page [1] makes me more certain that bitmaps will be my first
attempt at a skinning model and someone else can do SVG or FXG.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> No, thats not what I meant. I said "AS code can work *with *FXG". This
> can be translated to JS code working with SVG. AS to JS translation is
> what you guys are working on. FXG to SVG XMSLT transformation is
> (hopefully) the only missing link.
I'm not sure it is just an XSLT, but hey, it sounds like it'll be your
problem to figure out, not mine.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> I will hopefully get to work on it sooner than later. I want to put this
> idea out and let you guys kick the tires to see if I am missing something
> obvious.
>
I don't see any obvious flaws. I just think I can get some sort of skinning
working with bitmaps more quickly than by dealing with a whole lot of
vectors.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
