If you check out this video http://code.google.com/p/svgweb/ (Tech
Talk at Google recently on SVG Web and Open Web Advocacy from Brad
Neuberg), you'll see that the svgweb project is in very similar to OL
in the way we can deal with open web and open standards: enable usage
of HTML5/CSS3 - and by that enabling innovation - while still
supporting IE6/IE7.
On Adobe/SVG: Flex4 has FXG, which is a modified version of SVG, with
adoption to better match the Flash 10/11 features: "When initial work
on an XML-based graphics interchange format began, the natural first
thought was to use SVG. However, there are key differences between SVG
and Flash Player’s graphics capabilities. These include core
differences in SVG and Flash’s rendering model with regards to
filters, transforms and text. Additionally, the interchange format
needed to be able to support future Flash Player features, which would
not necessarily map to SVG features. As such, the decision was made to
go with a new interchange format, FXG, instead of having a non-
standard implementation of SVG. FXG does borrow from SVG whenever
possible."
http://www.andersblog.com/archives/2008/09/flash_on_the_be.html
On Sep 28, 2009, at 9:33 PM, P T Withington wrote:
On 2009-09-28, at 04:42, Raju Bitter wrote:
It's interesting to see that the SVG folks have a demo showcase
which shows their application running as either SVG or Flash:
http://codinginparadise.org/projects/svgweb/samples/demo.html
Isn't that just because they have never succeeded in getting any
browsers to support either native or plug-in SVG?
What's weirder to me is that Adobe was a major backer of SVG. Now
they have the "means of production" (they could stealth distribute
an SVG plug-in as part of the next Flash update), but they've never
taken advantage of that.
At one point, Henry demonstrated that we could use an SVG player as
an LZX back-end; but if there are no SVG players, that's not really
of interest.
