flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sebastian Mohr <flex.masul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FXG 2.0 donation progress concerns and Adobe design tool support
Date Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:48:47 GMT
@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 <nicholas@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 <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/14/13 1:02 PM, "Om" <bigosmallm@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
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message