[sago]

Wow. I get the 'I want to climb Everest' idea of seeing if something can be done, and all props to mountaineers who make it, but this article reads as if the author is advocating this approach. Which would be a staggering waste of time and effort.

SVG works in all browsers where this would work (modulo some incompatibilities with advanced effects like filters), is easy to create in a graphics application, is animatable (with a few more caveats, but fewer than trying to animate his version), is resolution independent, adds almost nothing to the file-size (as long as your image is 'vector'ish), and is less likely to partially degrade in embarrassing ways (important to most brands, who'd rather not show the logo than have it massacred).

I'm trying not to sound know-it-all and dismissive, but I can't help but feel a 'front-end fanatic' should use the right tool for the job. Or at least be clear that this is a deliberate 'Everest' project, not something with 'pros' that suggest a recommendation.

Is svg considered black magic, or old tech, or something? Why does it so regularly seem to be ignored in favour of reinventing the wheel? There was a whole icon-font made with CSS+HTML on HN a few months ago that seemed to be a similar exercise in willful self-torture.