This is interesting. SVG Spider is a 100% SVG website (more about SVG). There are some major problems with SVG though (and this proof of concept). For one, on this site you can't scroll down if the page extends below your fold. Second, I know that one of the benefits of doing an SVG page (as opposed to Flash) is that it can be indexed; however, I don't see how this is the case with the SVG Spider. You can't view the source, which leads me to believe that it won't be indexed (does anyone know if this is wrong or not?). Also, I'm getting an Unrecognized Doctype Declaration error.

The other thing I was thinking is that it's unusual for Adobe to support an open source initiative like this. Their whole business has been built on proprietary tools (and damn good ones at that). To create any decent looking SVGs, the subtle message is that you need Illustrator. If you investigate how to implement SVG on your site, you'll find that it's not exactly the most straightforward thing in the world. It can be argued that Flash isn't that straightforward either...but comparing them side-by-side, and you can bet that most designers are not going to have the in-depth XML knowledge (and patience) to learn how to code SVG (here's a sample SVG document structure example). In fact, this close relationship with XML has been, what I've seen, as the major selling point (SVG is based on XML, with its own dtd and everything)...but you can use XML with Flash just as easily. Of course, you'll have to buy Flash though...but why wouldn't you? It's already viewable by 98% of the browsers out there. What's the penetration of SVG? A sliver of that...not to mention, an SVG viewer weighs in at over 2MB, while the comparitively svelt flash plugin is a few hundred K.