3 ms·

My general point is that SVG is an extremely complex format and that its complexity is preventing further adoption. Removing SVG fonts isn't going to change any

My general point is that SVG is an extremely complex format and that its complexity is preventing further adoption. Removing SVG fonts isn't going to change anything about that, as nobody but webkit bothered to implement it anyway. > This particular attack is no longer possible in SVG 2.0. You still need to configure your xml parser the correct way, this doesn't really change anything. > But it's certainly not difficult to parse a data string if you pay close attention to the spec. Or you just change the spec to follow the buggy behaviour when a few implementation have the same bug: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2010Apr/0042.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2010Apr/0042.ht... which leads to new bugs https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1284409 https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1284409 I think the amount of issues you can find around svg paths with a bit of googling make a pretty good case that the format is overly complex.

dietrichepp 10y ago
I really don't know what that "further adoption" you're talking about because it's on all major browsers. caniuse.com marks SVG support on 97% of clients worldwide.
- legulere 10y ago
  You can't really use SVGs, except on the web. MS office, latex, ... all need conversion. This seems a minor issue at first, but companies will simply not bother converting their logos to SVGs for the web then. Even on the web wikipedia prerenders als svgs to have uniform look of them on all browsers, image hosters don't support them (probably because they could contain javascript), when I see something that looks like a vector graphic on the web it's >90% of the time a png.
  - dietrichepp 10y ago
    Well, yeah. You also can't really use HTML except on the web. SVG and HTML are both formats that are most at home on the web and in a web browser. It does that job well. It does a lot of things that are impossible or cumbersome in PNGs. PNGs are good enough for logos, I don't see why you would care either way.

dietrichepp 10y ago

I really don't know what that "further adoption" you're talking about because it's on all major browsers. caniuse.com marks SVG support on 97% of clients worldwide.

legulere 10y ago
You can't really use SVGs, except on the web. MS office, latex, ... all need conversion. This seems a minor issue at first, but companies will simply not bother converting their logos to SVGs for the web then. Even on the web wikipedia prerenders als svgs to have uniform look of them on all browsers, image hosters don't support them (probably because they could contain javascript), when I see something that looks like a vector graphic on the web it's >90% of the time a png.
- dietrichepp 10y ago
  Well, yeah. You also can't really use HTML except on the web. SVG and HTML are both formats that are most at home on the web and in a web browser. It does that job well. It does a lot of things that are impossible or cumbersome in PNGs. PNGs are good enough for logos, I don't see why you would care either way.