@Nicholas ... *> Dosen't FXG also support bitmaps, effects, and other things as well? [...] * *> Would those elements be able to be supported with SVG? (I really am asking* *> on that one. The last time I dealt with SVG was in 2002 for a mapping application). *
SVG 1.1 document [1] recommends the Image Element [2], Filter Effects [3], SMIL Animations [4] ... etc., but, am not sure which web browser supports it. *> FXG was only supported in CS 5.0 and 5.5. 6.0 and 6.1 * *> no longer support FXG without a hard-to-find plugin) * Which FXG "hard-to-find plugin" for CS6 are you referring to? I haven't had the chance to work with CS6, but, I am pretty happy with my CS5.5. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/single-page.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/single-page.html#chapter-filters [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/single-page.html#struct-ImageElement [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/single-page.html#chapter-animate -- Sebastian (PPMC) Interaction Designer Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code: http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicho...@spoon.as>wrote: > Dosen't FXG also support bitmaps, effects, and other things as well? I > thought that is how the support with Photoshop worked (btw, FXG was only > supported in CS 5.0 and 5.5. 6.0 and 6.1 no longer support FXG without a > hard-to-find plugin). Would those elements be able to be supported with > SVG? (I really am asking on that one. The last time I dealt with SVG was > in 2002 for a mapping application). > > -Nick > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Om <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/14/13 1:02 PM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> Don't PhotoShop and Illustrator output SVG as well? What is it > about > > > FXG > > > >> that is a must-have especially if you are targeting HTML and not > > Flash? > > > > > > > > > > > > This implies that I need to decide on the target (HTML vs. Flash) > > before > > > I > > > > even start designing the skin for the app. Is that what you expect > > > > developers to do with FlexJS? > > > Nope, I think they should just choose SVG, and FlexJS and its compiler > > > should try to convert it into Flash assets when running on Flash. > > > > > > Right, except that when the user chooses the SVG route, that eliminates > > support for older browsers. > > > > > > > Frankly, > > > I'm not sure if it has to do a great job in terms of fidelity or > > > performance. For most folks, the end goal is to get a great HTML/JS > app. > > > The SWF version is so you can develop and test as much as possible > before > > > cross-compiling. > > > > > > > > If I may suggest an alternative approach, I would use the SWF version to > > support older browsers. Remember, Flash Player for Desktop is still very > > prevalent. > > > > For the newer browsers that support do support inline SVG, we can convert > > FXG to SVG and we have a viable non-swf alternative. This is a more > > future-safe approach, IMHO. > > > > > > > > > My point is that we have tools that create FXG, we have AS code that > > can > > > > work with FXG. I believe it is a more efficient approach run with > FXG > > > and > > > > make it work with HTML/JS. The end result would make the SDK users > > that > > > > much happier. > > > The AS code that works with FXG probably uses a lot of Flash APIs, so > it > > > can't be cross-compiled efficiently to JS. If you can write an > efficient > > > FXG renderer on the JS side, please do so. > > > > > > > No, thats not what I meant. I said "AS code can work *with *FXG". This > > can be translated to JS code working with SVG. AS to JS translation is > > what you guys are working on. FXG to SVG XMSLT transformation is > > (hopefully) the only missing link. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the flip side, you have not convinced me that we should drop FXG. > > > I am not trying to convince you to drop FXG, I am just saying that I > > would > > > rather write code to support SVG instead and may do so after I get > bitmap > > > skinning working. IMO, every year, fewer and fewer new releases of > tools > > > will output FXG unless we can show the world a reason it is better than > > > SVG. > > > > > > But again, you or anyone is welcome to write the FXG support, and I > will > > > welcome it. > > > > > > > I will hopefully get to work on it sooner than later. I want to put this > > idea out and let you guys kick the tires to see if I am missing something > > obvious. > > > > Thanks, > > Om > > >
