Comment 28 for bug 168261

(In reply to comment #26)
> What if the img tag supported only SVG Tiny, with the object tag required to
> use full SVG?

i would object to that, i think this feature would be nice to have especially where you need a complex graphic, but you dont need a dom and stuff.
especially the most expensive features of SVG like filters would benefit most from solving this bug, because then i could pack tons of filters in a file,
without loosing performance of the browser, but filters are not part of SVGT. using SVGT would cost to many features, like clippathes, masks, opacity, gradients, filters.
i recently had a little project where this would come in handy, i wrote an XSLT to create a barchart on the clientside. the largest benefit here is
the saved serverload and bandwidth. so only a small chart description is send to the browser. with xslt, i turn that description into a complex barchart graphic with 100s of objects with grandients , opacity, strokes and filters
this works great, but try embeding this chart in a html file; firefox nearly
dies when you try to scroll. as i dont want to change the chart via script, a one shot still image would be enough for me. having this bug fixed would gain me the best of two worlds: decreased server load and bandwith, and good performance on the client while still providing graphicly rich content.
(here is an example: http://www.treebuilder.de/default.asp?file=172558.xml i had to revert to a prerendered image because of the performance issues, and this is only a small example )

also i think it is not neccesarry to revert to SVGT because SVG allows for sub profiling via modules. so we could have an SVG full implementation without the scripting module.