On 23/01/2008, Charles McCathieNevile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An image is not a replacement for text in the real world, only in Ian's > current drafts. And where it is, SVG is ideal for having beautifully > styled selectable interactive text that is lightweight and easy to create > (or heavyweight and bloated if you use something like inkscape, but still > easy to create and easy to automagically optimise to something > lightweight). > Which is why I disagree thoroughly with Chris' assertion here.
FWIW, my use case is to be able to create images in SVG and just use them as ... images, just like I do PNGs or JPEGs. It was also somewhat inspired by setting up rsvg for MediaWiki on our work intranet and wanting to hit it repeatedly with a hammer ... but relying on client-side SVG rendering will have to wait until Firefox 3 renders it not only correctly, but without pegging the processor just displaying ;-) I think Chris is incorrect in his assertion because clients can be presumed to have increasing amounts of rendering power available just to make pretty pictures. Every browser (except IE) *has* SVG rendering. Firefox 3 will have *accurate* SVG rendering. SVG is the Right Thing for so many situations. It's all looking promising to me so far. - d.
