SVG vs XAML Shootout Comments From the SVG Crowd

Hello,

  For some balance to Ron DeSerranno's SVG vs XAML
editorial allow me to quote some comments from the svg
mailinglist:

  Antoine Quint writes:

  Let's get this straight:

   - my customers are interested in SVG because it is
cross-platform and it's here now.

   - I wouldn't count your more-than-partial
implementation of a technology that isn't yet fully
specified by Microsoft as evidence that XAML is here
today. I'm yet to be convinced that anyone would be
ready to shell money out today to buy even a complete
implementation of what incarnation of XAML is known
right now when everyone knows that so much about it is
directly linked to Longhorn, a product without a set
release date.


  Robin Berjon writes:

  I don't think anyone is blaming zaml.com for pushing
XAML -- indeed people push their technology and that's
fine. However, the actual content of
http://www.zaml.com/Editorials/Jan11-04.htm,
forgetting about spelling mistakes and the such,
oscillates between just plain dumb and insulting. I
believe that's what Antoine was referring to.

  To take random bits, it states that SVG is "failing
to keep up with the pace of industry" for the simple
reason that it's not proprietary vapourware; talks
about the plusses of UI aimed at a single platform in
the day and age of device independence; stabs at CSS
with no standing argument; parades blistering
ignorance regarding ASV and the languages available to
program SVG; has outrageously indoctrinated views on
Open Source "do-gooders jump[ing] on the bandwagon"
(thank the IE and IIS teams for nurturing the Web into
existence!)...

  I'm fine with a grain of salt, but this is closer to
requiring a complete salt mine.       


  DonXML Demsak writes:

  XAML tries to do more than just vector graphics (and
well, vector graphics is just a very small part of
XML).  It is more related to the Element and Binary
Behaviors technology in IE than to SVG or VML.  If XUL
rendered its content to SVG, then it would be more
like XAML (but that requires a leap of faith the XUL
guys refuse to take, no matter how hard I try to
explain it to them, they don't get it).  

<venting>
XAML isn't vaporware, it actually works.  I'm tired of
people flaming a technology that they have never used.
It is a typical FUD reaction, due in part to the fact
that some of these folks can't get a copy of Longhorn
to play with.  But, that being said, the majority of
people that spread the FUD would never dirty their
hands and actually try to use a technology before
flaming it (hey, but that is one of my pet peeves, so
I've got to learn to deal with it!).
</venting>

If you are really interested in the SVG versus XAML
debate, and want to get an impartial (well as
impartial as I can make it) view, then just keep an
eye on my site: http://www.donxml.com.  I love SVG,
and have been with it for a long time (not as long as
some on this list, but still a long time).  I want to
see both SVG and the graphic elements in XAML prosper
and compete against each other.  If that happens, then
both the SVG and the XAML developers will benefit by
it.  Otherwise we wind up with what happened with HTML
(stagnation).

I converted my old SVG analog clock example to XAML,
and have a detailed article
(http://www.donxml.com/VectorGraphicsAndDeclarativeAnimationWithAvalon
.htm) on how to build it in XAML.  I'm working on a
separate version of the article that details the SVG
to XAML process that I went thru, but I've been so
busy that I haven't had time to complete it.


  Full story @
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.text.xml.svg.devel/22546

  - Gerald


-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn