3 ms·
"Animation and scripting and sprite stacks" sound like exactly the sorts of things that I, as a web surfer, deliberately turn off in my browser. There is alread
by Lagged2Death 14y ago
"Animation and scripting and sprite stacks" sound like exactly the sorts of things that I, as a web surfer, deliberately turn off in my browser. There is already far too much animation and scripting etc. on the web.
Scalable graphics as a native web format is a great thing. But if the cost is yet another format filled with irritations and security holes, then no thanks.
The most successful media formats have been very narrowly focused. JPEG, GIF, PNG, MP3s, etc. do not have a zillion exciting features. You can't build a complete web application with a JPEG file. JPEG compresses photographs (and only photographs) really, really well, and that's all it does.
Maybe what scalable vector graphics need to do to catch on is to throw out the super-feature-dense SVG system and come up with something new, something simpler, something that just does scalable still images really well, something that isn't yet another enormous all-singing, all-dancing ball of security liabilities and unintended consequences.
- vlasta2 14y agoIndeed, SVG is a bad standard because it is too complex. There is no 100%-compatible SVG editor (except notepad) - every vector graphic editor just supports its own subset of SVG, things get lost when transferring things between "SVG-supporting" editors. There are multiple ways to do the same thing in SVG - this makes it difficult to understand a SVG file created by someone else and it is very hard to return to a complex SVG file after few years and modify it. The complexity of SVG makes web browsers larger and more complex (hence less secure and slower). So, I disagree with the article. Keep away from SVG unless you really need it and maybe someone designs a simpler vector format for the web.