I think it's a good long term investment. There is a lot already invested in it. FXG is more like SVG 4.0. Also, there has been work done on the compiler that produces optimized FXG. FXG is Flex' friend.
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Yvon Sauvageau <ysma...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Don't convert your FXG to SVG for real though. The last time I tried SVG > in FB 4.6, I got compile warnings that basically told me that SVG was a > thing of the past and that I should use FXG. > > -----Original message----- > From: Jeffry Houser <jef...@dot-com-it.com> > To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: "sébastien Paturel" <sebpatu.f...@gmail.com> > Sent: Fri, Oct 5, 2012 14:34:04 GMT+00:00 > Subject: Re: Is FXG a good long term choice for Apache Flex? > > On 10/5/2012 9:44 AM, sébastien Paturel wrote: > > > > by the way, why Adobe chose to use new FXG, instead of SVG? (i bet the > > answer as already been given a few times, sorry for asking again) > > There has been some talk about that in the past. The general gist--as > I understand it--was that they decided it would be better to create > something which was closer to the Flash Player rending model. > > FXG and SVG are very close; as I understand it. I thought the Flex > compiler supported SVG too? It may be an interesting experiment to > convert all the FXG elements (and related skins) to SVG. > > -- > Jeffry Houser > Technical Entrepreneur > 203-379-0773 > -- > http://www.flextras.com?c=104 > UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready! > -- > http://www.theflexshow.com > http://www.jeffryhouser.com > http://www.asktheflexpert.com > -- > Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust > >
