4 ms·
SVG has… weirdnesses. I couldn’t say exactly what they are. But it feels like an older format from an XML-centric era. It also feels fairy lax on “optional feat
by klabb3 3y ago
SVG has… weirdnesses. I couldn’t say exactly what they are. But it feels like an older format from an XML-centric era. It also feels fairy lax on “optional features” and ambiguous spec (although I’m not sure this is true). There are noticeable differences between different rendering engines.
Most of drawing works fine as markup. However, animations and simple state changes are awful. CSS is much easier to use for some of those purposes.
I’d very much forgive SVG for its clunkiness, after all it’s old yet very powerful today. It’s a prime candidate for a revamp.
- chefandy 3y agoNoticable differences between rendering engines for what? Sometimes type can be janky, but no moreso than in html/css, and in SVG you're generally turning type into vector outlines. For graphics rendering, it's completely accurate in any environment I've used it in, and that's working with very very fussy brands.
- BoorishBears 3y agoI mean I'd say this is pretty noticeable: https://imgur.com/e6TbXFj https://imgur.com/e6TbXFj Same screen, same zoom levels. Viewbox properly set, height/width set, confirmed compliant units. Switching between img/object would get it unblurry but then lose the embedded image data. Switching to inline-svg would in turn get the image data working but the drop shadow was completely broken.
- chefandy 3y agoYes-- filters and type aren't super consistent. I wouldn't rely on SVG to use either of them for significant elements.
- klabb3 3y agoI don’t recall exactly. Filters or blending modes probably.