SVG in 3?

[Michael Ashton]

On Sunday, March 23, 2003, at 12:39  AM, Listera wrote:

> "Michael Ashton" wrote:
>
>> So why would I use Flash instead of SVG for printing? I don't see the
>> advantage.
>
> Flash, being essentially a vector format, can deliver scalable text and
> graphics, suitable for printing.

And SVG _is_ a vector format. It does everything I need it to do, and 
it's text based (XML). Isn't Flash a binary-only format?

If Flash is a binary-only format, that makes it messy to embed directly 
into text files. I can include snips of SVG into source text or XML 
right now. It's designed for this. And version control is much less 
convenient to do on binary source formats.

> Unlike SVG (or anything else for that matter) Flash has better than 
> 90% client coverage online.

... through one piece of software: a free browser plug-in from 
Macromedia. SVG is in the same position, because of the free Adobe 
plug-in, but at least one browser is going to have native SVG support.

> For any kind of wide-scale, commercial use SVG is pretty much a 
> phantom format, at the moment.

There is an awful lot of interest in SVG right now, as far as I can 
see, and direct, existing support from some pretty major apps. There's 
a lot of momentum behind SVG. I don't think it's going away. I'd say 
it's passed out of the phantom stage.

> If printing is your only focus, I don't know why you wouldn't want to 
> use PDF to begin with.

Printing isn't my only focus, but I do most definitely want to use PDF 
- for output. PDF is a great format, widely supported, does a pretty 
darn good job. But it's binary. Binary's fine, but I want an XML format 
for graphics, and SVG seems like a good way to go.

----
Michael Ashton <data at ieee.org>
Peruvian intellectual Hernando de Soto on why his two dogs are named 
Marx and Engels: "They are German, hairy, and have no respect for 
property." (from _The Economist_, by way of _National Review_)