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 >
