• To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: RE: Re: SVG (Was: XHTML survival rate?)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:04:04 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

The dependency on patents can always be revived. 

That said, the real problem is not having more than 
one (Adobe) or two (batik) SVG viewers.  That isn't 
healthy.  Even with RAND or royalty free, there 
isn't much economic incentive to build a competing 
free viewer, and without one, SVG belongs to Adobe. 
That isn't wrong; just uncomfortable.   
Most of the free/open formats result in a single 
viewer dominating the niche.    I'd be 
thrilled to see an MS SVG viewer but I can also 
understand why they might not consider it a good 
business move.

X3D may also become a force although real time 
3D has had a very hard time getting more than 
a cult following despite the obvious efficiencies 
and power of it.

len

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: SVG (Was: XHTML survival rate?)
    • From: heikki@n... (Heikki Toivonen)

• Prev by Date: Re: An appropriate xml-dev project
• Next by Date: Re: Re: SVG (Was: XHTML survival rate?)
• Previous by thread: OASIS announcement of LegalXML discussion lists
• Next by thread: Re: Re: SVG (Was: XHTML survival rate?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread