SVG vs Canvas

In gaining an interest in learning SVG (scaleable vector graphics), I’ve also acquired a dangling doubt of its future.  Afterall, the standard came about after the roll of the century and support is still mediocre.  Cell phone browsers and the Microsoft alternative rendering engines have it, but the big boy (IE6-8) still doesn’t and I don’t forsee them adding it anytime soon.  On the other hand, it’s also a great way to portably represent vector images for books and the Open Ebook Specification supports it as does the Kindle and other modern devices of that genre.  One particular threat to SVG is HTML5’s “Canvas” if you believe the media FUD.  However, after a brief bit of research I would call the two complimentary and not directly competing.

Canvas is raster graphics, you essentially get a pixel buffer to manipulate however you like.  Contrast this with SVG which is an XML DOM extension with persistent objects in a documented structure; it can even live inline with an XHTML document requiring no scripting at all to display.  It also is more printable and less likely to degrade with higher scale.  I see Canvas as being dominate in interative “web apps” and SVG leading long-term static storage.

All Supply No Demand

Two articles highlighted by Slashdot are indicative of the clash between old world, materialistic rules and new age, digital fluency.  One hinges on the correlation between accessible persistent imagery and the protection of privacy.  Another pops the outlandish idea of fair use and file sharing going hand in hand.

First is a town in England which mobbed together to drive out a Google driver taking snapshots for Street View.  Folk got robbed recently, a lot, and decided it wouldn’t help to have their public streets systematically photographed and placed under unending anonymous scrutiny.  Some say crying wolf will draw more attention than not, but during this stage of media awareness they’re probably safe from burglars (who I would assume shy away from “hot spots”).

Their spirit may draw praise from some but eventually you’ll see every nook and cranny of what’s visible from space, not just the streets.  Good luck holding onto hiding from Google, and possibly the world.  Just be thankful the updates to such photographs are not yet in real-time!

Defense attorney Charlie Nesson in the second article makes the claim that file sharing falls under fair use.  I read the original Ars spot but neglected to do much else besides skim the comments.  It simply brought to mind, again, the idea of people wanting to sell things which sometimes take very real effort to produce but have very subjective value to the end consumer.  Two major legal digital delivery methods are the current cool: DRM-laden streaming services and buying individual items piece-meal.  Neither of these can be sustained indefinitely, at some point things like movies, television shows, and songs are going to float about unabated to any person with a particular itch to scratch.

Note I did mention an effort to produce, which means a cost is involved.  If there’s a cost then how is it recouped if everyone can grab anything at anytime?  I don’t have an answer for that, but perhaps tying this down to monetary logic and economics is playing within a sandbox; there are other possibilities beyond it.  Sure you could talk about live shows, donations, or whatever, but in my bumbling brain there is a silly spark of left-over hippiness implying money is a dying concept itself.  Or, at least, when it comes to cyber space.

There is no supply and people continually try to apply physical rules to things which are no longer physically bound.  Somewhere along the line I read an article describing the internet as a giant copy machine and considering that, and that seems a bit generalized but accurate.