SVG had some built in technical limitations, but its biggest problem was (and still is) a lack of complete and correct implementations within browsers. In other browsers (Chrome, Firefox) there are many glitches related to text positioning. Until IE9, Microsoft did not support SVG at all, and even now there is no support for SVG fonts. Worst of all, most implementations were incomplete and buggy.It is missing support for efficient monochrome compression, which is important for many scanned business documents.A bloated spec designed to also compete with Flash, incorporating scripting and animation, put a high burden for those wishing to implement the spec completely.transparency/blend mode), making it impossible to faithfully reproduce PDF content using SVG. SVG is not fully compatible with the PDF graphics model (e.g.However, widespread adoption of SVG and the supplanting of PDF never came to pass. PDFTron took action and developed the first PDF to SVG converter in 2001. At first, this technology seems very promising: it will deliver the vector data and precise positioning we want, with fonts, gradients, masks and more. The W3C recognized the need to bring high-quality vector graphics to the web, and proposed SVG (scalable vector graphics). Storage requirements could be significant.It is easy for users to save DOM content locally, which is a concern if serving copyright content.Degrades to full PDF rasterization when text is semi-transparent, partially occluded or covered by transparent objects, pattern-filled objects, etc.So one must accept this limitation, or instead accept somewhat inaccurate text positioning. Doing this reduces page load speed and the ability to search/index/select text. Accurate text positioning is possible, however it requires a separate for every letter.Quality for non-text elements is sacrificed for all non-text data.So while this is a step up from full rasterization, problems remain: Allows the user to use the browser’s standard text selection/copying capabilities, which can also be read by search engine robots.People are especially sensitive to the quality of text, so preserving the vector nature of the glyphs is a big improvement. (This technique is implemented by PDFTron in ().) While it sounds like an incremental change from full rasterization, there are some significant advantages: The idea here is to use the browser’s native text rendering and layer it on top of an image that contains all of the non-text data.
0 kommentar(er)
