4 ms·

Looks awful under Chrome (Windows): http://i.imgur.com/c6t6f.png http://i.imgur.com/c6t6f.png

• TylerE 14y ago
  Looks bad on mac Chrome also.
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• pygy_ 14y ago
  AA is also problematic in IE9 (Win7): http://i.imgur.com/mH7dZ.png http://i.imgur.com/mH7dZ.png As you can see, resized PNGs are not antialised at all in IE, but they a
• rhizome 14y ago
  Yeah, if you scroll down to the test block with all the different effects, Chrome is a blocker for SVG. Might as well be VRML.
  • jarek-foksa 14y ago
    The data included in that table is totally wrong. Chrome supports most of the filter primitives defined in SVG spec, IE9 supports none of them, Firefox supports vast majority but with serious performance issues. The real blocker for SVG is the lack of good authoring tools. Illustrator (used by the author of this article) apparently generates SVG files by rasterising many vector effects. I suspect that there is a bug in WebKit that breaks bitmap rendering in certain circumstances, this would explain why some Illustrator-generated effects failed on Chrome.
    • rhizome 14y ago
      Point being: SVG is still a non-starter. :/
• pygy_ 14y ago
  AA is also problematic in IE9 (Win7): http://i.imgur.com/mH7dZ.png http://i.imgur.com/mH7dZ.png As you can see, resized PNGs are not antialised at all in IE, but they are in Chrome.
• thezilch 14y ago
  Same, bad, aliasing issues in Chrome (Ubuntu). "No problems so far. The SVG looks good in all modern browsers." Not so much.