Adobe to Discontinue Adobe SVG Viewer
Adobe has decided to discontinue support for Adobe SVG Viewer.
There are a number of other third-party SVG viewer implementations in the marketplace, including native support for SVG in many Web browsers. The SVG language and its adoption in the marketplace have both matured to the point where it is no longer necessary for Adobe to provide an SVG viewer.
SVG is an established vector image format. Adobe currently supports SVG in several of its authoring and server products, including Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive, Version Cue, Graphics Server, FrameMaker, and FrameMaker Server.
Adobe customer support for Adobe SVG Viewer will be discontinued on January 1, 2009.
For more information on this decision and answers to questions about the discontinuation of Adobe SVG Viewer, please see the SVG Viewer End of Life FAQ
CORNELIUSSEON 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeabut it will still be available to download 'as long as users rely on it' (rough quote). Globbet (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Inkscape as valid
I saved a vector image as an inscape SVG, and the W3C validator still validated it, althugh with three warnings. Please see http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fed%2FSpacing_Estimation_plot_for_MSE_example.svg. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Inkscape 0.46 and also according to W3C SVG includes support for blurring effects but unfortunately it is currently not supported by the rendering program rsvg used on MediaWiki. So you better avoid such effects even it's no proper solution at all.
The above paragraph is unclear and poorly written. It needs to be rewritten. Is the following what is intended?
- W3C states that SVG supports blurring effects. Inkscape version 0.46 provides blurring. Unfortunately, the rendering program rsvg used on MediaWiki does not support blurring. Therefore please avoid using blurring.
- I don't see the paragraph as unclear. Your proposed solution is worse, imho, since you repeat yourself in every single sentence there which is poor style. What should be changed though, is to link to the actual specification instead of w3schools which has no affiliation to the W3C and cannot be considered a normative reference. —Johannes Rössel (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
My proposal was only intended as the start of an improvement. I hope that the paragraph can be further improved. One problem was the grammar "Inkscape 0.46 and also according to W3C SVG includes ..." is unfamiliar to me. Also, it is unclear (to me) what the "it" refers to. Inkscape? Not "they" for "blurring effects"? "So you better avoid such effects even it's no" also appeared to be a strange kind of English. -84user (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
A bit outdated
Unreleased SVG 1.2 standard
- The SVG 1.2 draft proposal has not been updated in over 7 years and it seems that the SVG 1.2 "Full" standard will never be officially adopted as such. Instead we have "SVG 1.1 (Second Edition)", "SVG Tiny 1.2", and all the current development work is focused on versions of the SVG 2 draft proposal... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)