Aral Balkan

This must be some sort of hidden epidemic: It appears that people who are clueless about Flash feel the need to write articles bashing it. Excuse me but I thought that was our job! Personally, I feel offended when someone who knows nothing but XML and Java feels the need to encroach on the turf of hard-working Flashers by criticizing Flash using myths and misinformation when we can do a much better job of bitching about things using actual facts! :)

The article I'm talking about is the one that JD blogged about called SVG: Imaging`s[sic] Pot of Gold? (It seems that someone has to teach the editors at DevArticles the difference between an apostrophe and a single opening quote.)

In it you will find such nuggets of misinformation like:

"Flash might be wonderful for many graphics tasks, but SVG can do everything Flash can do and more."

One can only wonder whether Ted Long, the article's author, has ever so much as launched the trial version of Flash when he makes such a brazenly incorrect statement with the literary equivalent of a straight face. Ted, sorry, but you're wrong, wrong, wrong!

You are comparing apples to oranges (and heck, you don't even have the common decency to do it on Slashdot, where such things are accepted!)

Debunking Ted

To start with, let me answer the "SVG can do everything Flash can do and more" claim:

Flash has video, SVG does not. (SVG 1.2 will support it but there are no final players that currently do and SVG 1.2 is currently a working draft. Adobe's next player should, based on the technology demo.)

Flash supports sound (SVG 1.2)

Flash allows socket communications, SVG does not. (Again, the SVG 1.2 spec does propose an implementation for this.)

Flash maintains state on the client, SVG does not.

Note: Flash supports all these now, not sometime in the future based on a draft proposal.

"The real bonus comes on the disk scale, however. Vector graphics weigh in for less than high-quality raster (pixel) images."

Wrong: Although I've never heard of the "disk scale" before, as Flash developers who have been working with vector graphics since the earliest days of Flash, we know that the size of vector graphics can mushroom based on their complexity and that this can also have a real affect on processing and playback performance. This, coupled with how much (and what type of) compression is used in the bitmap image can mean that bitmap images come out smaller than vector graphics. This sweeping statement, thus, is inaccurate.

To prove this, take a look at the GIF of this Tiger illustration (71kb) and compare it to the size of the SVG file (95kb). (Of course, we could debate until the cows come how as to what constitutes a "high quality" raster image – 0% compression? Subjectively the GIF of the Tiger illustration is "high quality" through it may not be fit for large-scale print. Then again, we're talking about web-based applications here.)

Now let's move on to answer the inaccurate claims on the "taking aim at Flash" page:

"Both require browser plug-in; SVG will get built-in browser support (e.g. Mozilla)"

It may well be that SVG gets built-in browser support but right now, that's not the case and the Flash player is ubiquitous. How long should developers have to wait until this happens? Should we put our project on hold for a month, year, two years? I'm running the latest FireFox right now and I can't view SVG content.

"Easy-readable plain-text vs. binary format"

Easily-readable if you're the type of person who hacks Linux kernel code, maybe. Have you ever tried to "read" through a complex SVG file? Here's a part of the SVG from a tiger image:

Ten points to Ted, if he can "easily read" and let me know which part of the tiger that code draws.

"$50,000 Flash Generator license for creating large-scale dynamic graphics vs. inexpensive packages such as PHP, XSLT, JSP and others"

Where have you been the last few years, Ted? Generator has been discontinued and you can do nearly everything Generator could in the Flash client these days. Oh yes, and those weird things you see out on the street are called au-to-mo-biles!

"Both allow embedding of typefaces (fonts); SVG allows multiple SVG documents to reference same SVG font file"

Flash allows the same thing using Shared Fonts.

"SVG supports Photoshop-like filter effects on vector graphics; Flash doesn't support filter effects"

True, Flash doesn't currently support filter effects but, according to Kevin Lynch's demo in Tokyo, the next version will. Could this be the one true statement in the whole article?

"SVG is a truly open and extensible format; anyone is welcome to add functionality; Flash is controlled by Macromedia; you can't extend the format without violating their patents/copyright"

Again, you are wrong. The SWF file format is open. The FLA isn't, the Flash IDE isn't and the Flash Player isn't but last I checked neither was Adobe SVG Viewer or Adobe Illustrator. I want my open-source Adobe Illustrator now, you hear?! Darn that closed SVG format!

Where Flash and SVG differ markedly is that we have not one but two professional IDEs (Flash and Flex) that make it simple to create Flash applications. Show me a comparable IDE for SVG. And no, Notepad just doesn't cut it!

The tools that do exist for SVG development don't even register on the features scale when compared to Flash MX 2004 or Flex Builder. Let's take a look at Adobe Illustrator, the self-professed "premier tool for generating SVG content." Its SVG Interactivity palette, for example, would have any Flash developer begging to use Flash 4 instead!

Another tool, Jasc WebDraw from Corel boasts: "Standard illustration tools", "Gradients" and "Bitmap images" as three big features on the first page of its features section. For some reason, that just doesn't get me excited! Could it be because we've had those primitive features in an easy-to-use IDE for the longest time and have moved on to things like Flash Remoting, Flash Communication Server and pattern-based Rich Internet Application development using ActionScript 2?

Ted's article would have been timely and perhaps even somewhat accurate if it had been written in the Flash 3 days (if we had had SVG back in those days, of course.) Today, it is antiquated, inaccurate and, quite frankly, a waste of good bandwidth.

Comments

• Sweet. I wish I had this article yesterday when I had this argument with my boss. I've built enterprise applications with both technologies and I prefer Flash for most applications.
  
  However, SVG does have it's advantages (usually in pure data visualiztion applications where you can control the desktops that it's running on--ie, enterprise apps). Until the SVG plugin base exceeds 70% there is no point in even thinking about it for consumer facing websites.

  by Tim Scollick on 2005-01-12 11:35:24

• *whew* Thank you Aral for your community service. I was gasping in disbelief (don't worry, wife knows CPR) about the crackhead who wrote that article.
  
  So, I think it's worth it to say it again, "Thank you, Aral!"
  
  Now I shall proceed to trackback your article in an effort to boost your page rank, thus discrediting (not that he didn't just discredit himself by writing such drivel) Ted R. Long's incorrect statements.

  by JesterXL on 2005-01-12 13:11:53

• Hey guys, thanks! Jesse, btw, I moved your comment here, you'd added it to the Colorspy post.

  by Aral Balkan on 2005-01-12 13:40:37

• Since I'm currently involved in a rather complex SVG project, I found that article "Preventing the death of SVG" by Dylan Schiemann a quite interesting summary about the status quo of SVG: http://www.dylanschiemann.com/blog/preventingDeathSVG.html
  
  The point regarding Generator is hilarious. Those were the days :o)

  by ralf.siegel on 2005-01-12 15:47:51

• What are you talking about Aral... You can clearly see that SVG snippet is the tiger's 3rd whisker on the left ;) hehe
  
  Seriously though, it's really incredible at the level of misinformation some techies have regarding Flash, considering it's been around for years since the banner ad only days! Is it going to get any better? Let's hope so!

  by richardleggett on 2005-01-12 15:49:07

• This is great ! SVG can never be compared to Flash. Flash is far more powerful than SVG and your justification was really neat.
  
  -LAH

  by Last ActionScript Hero on 2005-01-12 16:34:57

• aral, as i am disappointed by Ted Long's article (which is definately not worth reading), i am disappointed by yours, as you are spreading (at least) similar disinformation.
  
  "Easy-readable plain-text vs. binary format"
  
  he is definately right with his statement, and that fact is a major disadvantage of swf. i have "read" through complex svg files, and easily changed text, styles, rearranged/copy-pasted shapes etc. using notepad. you can't do that with swf (except maybe if you use tools like kinetic fusion to convert the swf format to xml - but that would mean i need additional specialized software to do so)
  
  "$50,000 Flash Generator license for creating large-scale dynamic graphics vs. inexpensive packages such as PHP, XSLT, JSP and others"
  
  he is right. i can't create create swf using "php, xslt, jsp and others". there are a few free options, but again, i need additional software and a flexible hosting that allows me to install that software to solve that issue. i don't need that for generating svg.
  
  "SVG is a truly open and extensible format; anyone is welcome to add functionality; Flash is controlled by Macromedia; you can’t extend the format without violating their patents/copyright"
  
  he is right. the swf format may be open (as we get the file specs months after the player/ide is released) but is *not open at all* in respect to extensibility. macromedia, and macromedia alone specifies what will be included in the next version of the file spec. svg is open for extensibility by design, plus everybody can participate in the svg working group to suggest new features, even without being a member of the w3c. if your suggestions are solid and useful, the wg will likely add them to a future version.
  
  again, i agree with you that that article is fud, that svg may not be ready for mainstream browser use and that you can't fully compare svg and flash anyways, but you can't deny that the svg spec offers advantages over swf (also, 2d features of svg are way more advanced compared to what we have in swf today, and even what we will have in maelstroem tomorrow - read the spec and get enlightened).
  just my 2 centavos.
  respectfully,
  claus.

  by claus wahlers on 2005-01-12 17:06:25

• Hi Claus,
  
  "i have "read" through complex svg files, and easily changed text, styles, rearranged/copy-pasted shapes etc."
  
  You can do the same with ActionScript, which should in any case be kept in external text files. To tell you the truth, i'd much rather go through a well-organized codebase, arranged neatly into packages then to search through an endless tree of XML code to find where someone may have dropped a piece of code.
  
  I also do not want to read through lines of code telling me how to draw a complex image and have all that mixed in with my business logic, etc. It's a mess. When I load in a bitmap, I don't really care what the color value of each pixel is -- I just want to display a bitmap. With Flash, I don't ever get bothered by these details.
  
  "i can't create create swf using "php, xslt, jsp and others"
  
  Yes, you can. In PHP, at least, you can use Ming. Since the file format is open, you can create your own solution in your language of choice for rendering Flash. At the end of the day, however, Flash is a *state-maintaining* client and thus rendering it on the server *does not make sense*. This is a gripe I have with Flex as well. SWFs should be compiled client-side not server-side.
  
  "svg is open for extensibility by design, plus everybody can participate in the svg working group to suggest new features, even without being a member of the w3c. if your suggestions are solid and useful, the wg will likely add them to a future version."
  
  Yes, but unfortunately things appear to be progressing at a snail's pace (and a particularly lethargic snail at that.) All the goodies that are in the draft spec for 1.2 are just that: *draft*. It will be ages before there are stable implementations, if any, and before those see widespread approval, if ever.
  
  There's a very big difference between a spec and tools you can work with today. Flash gives us tools to work with today and people are using it to create things. The SVG draft proposal for 1.2 gives us, possibly, hope for tomorrow.

  by Aral Balkan on 2005-01-12 17:37:18

• "You can do the same with ActionScript, which should in any case be kept in external text files."
  
  you are comparing apples with oranges. we are talking about the swf file format vs the svg file format here, not about dynamic client side shape generation (which you can do in the exactly same fashion in svg as in flash, even with the advantage that you can rely upon (really) open standards, like dom, but that's not the point). the point is that the swf format is not readable by humans, and you can't deny that fact (even if you personally don't want to do that, for whatever reasons that may very well make sense for you).
  
  "In PHP, at least, you can use Ming. Since the file format is open, you can create your own solution in your language of choice for rendering Flash"
  
  no i can't, because the client i work for doesn't have ming installed, and can't install it without a high cost, as his server is cerified by some institution and the ming package is not. my client has xslt installed though, and other basic technologies that are available anywhere and that allow me to generate svg very easily.
  
  "Yes, but unfortunately things appear to be progressing at a snail's pace (and a particularly lethargic snail at that)"
  
  yes they are (if you are refering to mainstream browser applications), but again, that's not the point. the point is that swf is not extensible. it is not, and will never be. plus, how many years did we have to wait for realtime photoshop vector effects in flash? and reliable rich text rendering? and accessibility for all platforms/clients? and proper support for rtl text? the list goes on and on. i'm still waiting.
  
  "There's a very big difference between a spec and tools you can work with today. Flash gives us tools to work with today and people are using it to create things"
  
  i'm not at all denying that, if you read my previous post carefully.
  respectfully,
  claus.

  by claus wahlers on 2005-01-12 18:05:04

• Hi Claus,
  
  "the point is that the swf format is not readable by humans, and you can't deny that fact"
  
  I'm not denying the fact that you cannot read the SWF file format. I am merely saying that it is of no practical importance.
  
  I do not want to read the SWF file format. Nor do I want to read Java bytecode. What's important is that the *source* is easy to read.
  
  It just so happens that you do not compile SVG into bytecode and thus it *is* the source.
  
  So when comparing readability, you have to compare the SVG source with the Flash source, which, in our case, is ActionScript (and ActionScript 2) and the FLA. Now again, to "read" the FLA, you do not use a Hex editor but look at how easy it is to see the structure and assets of an application. Using the Flash IDE, you can, at a glance (and visually) see the structure of your application and your assets. This is an infinitely better workflow than hunting through a huge XML file for this and that.
  
  "no i can't, because the client i work for doesn't have ming installed, and can't install it without a high cost"
  
  Well, I wasn't stating that you *should*. As I said earlier, SWF generation belongs on the client, not the server. Flash can maintain state on the client and carry out data exchanges and even socket and remoting connections. If you must generate simple dynamic graphics and things, and insist on doing it on the server, I guess you can always use SVG! :)
  
  "the point is that swf is not extensible. it is not, and will never be."
  
  Again, let's take a practical approach: Do I really care whether or not the SWF file format is extensible? Or do I care whether or not I can *extend Flash* I can easily do the latter by building my own components and Flash, at least on the desktop, currently has more features than you can shake a stick at with more being added every day. I'd rather have Macromedia, who has an economic incentive to make Flash better in a timely manner, respond to my feature requests than have them debated in the high academic corridors of the W3C!
  
  "how many years did we have to wait for realtime photoshop vector effects in flash?"
  
  To tell you the truth, this was never high on my wish list. It's great that it's coming but we could always fake those effects if need be. When will SVG support remoting? EcmaScript 4? When will it give me the advantages I have with Flash Communication Server today?.. The list goes on.
  
  Flash gives me the tools I need to work with today and has been doing so since the turn of the century, if not before. SVG appears to be all about promises.

  by Aral Balkan on 2005-01-12 18:43:38

• i guess the real problem with that "svg vs swf" comparison rant crap is that, today, those technologies target different audiences, based on the individual advantages and disadvantages of both technologies. the technology that works best for you and many other flash developers may not work best for other people.
  
  so i guess i could write another followup on your points (i don't agree to some of them), and we could continue endlessly.
  
  real world examples are current clients of mine, clients, that chose open standards as their technology of choice, because they work best for them. clients, that are capable of, and willing to develop useragents to render those file formats (user agents that certainly won't make it to the public at all), and invest in business logic to support them. clients, that won't ever invest in proprietary de-facto standards and tools because they have no control over them and, effectively, don't "have the choice".
  
  different entities have different needs. can we agree upon that? ;)
  respectfully,
  claus.
  

  by claus wahlers on 2005-01-12 19:56:13

• "different entities have different needs. can we agree upon that?"
  
  Most definitely! :)

  by Aral Balkan on 2005-01-12 20:47:19

• Aral,
  
  You made my day! Thanks for posting this.
  
  Some people think XML will save the world, end the wars and poverty and all. I don't.
  
  SVG has its uses. SWF is a global standard that works today and rules. period.
  
  Best regards,
  Burak

  by burak on 2005-01-12 21:49:15

• i think you should really read the license for the flash specification document. in it you'll see really how closed the flash format is. Macromedia only allows developers to write SWF-generating software with it. Any attempts to write SWF-opening software (such as a 3rd party player) may be met with legal action.
  
  Don't get me wrong SWF is great but in the spirit of this article I think you should correct your statement about flash openness.

  by huh on 2005-01-13 05:26:34

• Dear "huh",
  
  Macromedia's File Format Specification License Agreement does state that the specification may only be used to "output swf".
  
  However, Macromedia has not taken any action against developers whose software opens SWFs. For an example, see Burak's ASV. From what I've seen, Macromedia has actually been *supportive* of Burak's efforts.
  
  Our very own Optimizer software opens, looks inside and modifies SWFs and, again, we have gotten nothing but support from Macromedia.
  
  I believe that the restrictions that exist are there so people do not start creating different Flash player versions. I personally would not want this because it would kill user trust in the Flash Player. (What if Person A put out an incompatible Flash player with security holes, etc?)
  
  As far as I'm concerned, I don't want anyone but Macromedia to put out Flash Players. Look at what happened when Microsoft decided to "improve" Java by putting out its own, incompatible, virtual machine (that's what the Flash Player is too, a virtual machine.) I applaud Macromedia's foresight in not allowing this.
  
  It doesn't make the SWF format any less open, it just makes practical sense.

  by aral on 2005-01-13 06:11:53

• propecia... wui kui...

  by propecia price on 2007-05-24 04:45:52

• Buy sublingual levitra online.... Levitra attorneys....

  by Generic levitra. on 2007-06-28 04:28:01