SVG has… weirdnesses. I couldn’t say exactly what they are. But it feels like an older format from an XML-centric era. It also feels fairy lax on “optional features” and ambiguous spec (although I’m not sure this is true). There are noticeable differences between different rendering engines.
Most of drawing works fine as markup. However, animations and simple state changes are awful. CSS is much easier to use for some of those purposes.
I’d very much forgive SVG for its clunkiness, after all it’s old yet very powerful today. It’s a prime candidate for a revamp.
Noticable differences between rendering engines for what? Sometimes type can be janky, but no moreso than in html/css, and in SVG you're generally turning type into vector outlines. For graphics rendering, it's completely accurate in any environment I've used it in, and that's working with very very fussy brands.
Same screen, same zoom levels. Viewbox properly set, height/width set, confirmed compliant units. Switching between img/object would get it unblurry but then lose the embedded image data. Switching to inline-svg would in turn get the image data working but the drop shadow was completely broken.
Most of drawing works fine as markup. However, animations and simple state changes are awful. CSS is much easier to use for some of those purposes.
I’d very much forgive SVG for its clunkiness, after all it’s old yet very powerful today. It’s a prime candidate for a revamp.