Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Brings SVG Support To IE

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the quickest-way-to-get-something-done dept.

Internet Explorer 233

stelt writes "Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) is in most graphical tools. It is used heavily in many big projects, such as KDE and Wikipedia. But Internet Explorer's lack of built-in support for SVG was keeping it away from mainstream use on the web. Google is fixing that now with a JavaScript drop-in named SVGWeb. They've posted a quick, one-minute overview, a longer and more detailed presentation, and you can read about it on the project page."

cancel ×

233 comments

Incompatibility Problems (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155197)

How long before a new version of IE develops incompatibility problems with this extension?

Re:Incompatibility Problems (3, Insightful)

rvw (755107) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155249)

How long before a new version of IE develops incompatibility problems with this extension?

How long until Google or someone else hacks around this?

Re:Incompatibility Problems (3, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155291)

It would be easier for them to just add SVG support.

Can we get rid of IE already, please? Just stop caring about it, and use open standards. If they won't adapt, tough luck.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (5, Insightful)

webheaded (997188) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155473)

I'm sorry, but I see this response a lot and I honestly have to say...have you ever actually run a website before? Alienating your potential audience over something like this is not really the best way to go about things. Yeah, maybe put up a notice somewhere about it, but really, telling them to just screw off is not actually a solution. It just makes your site look like crap to all the people using IE. The people that still use IE6 and such aren't the type of people to know or care why your site is broken...they just think you have a broken site.

I completely understand your hate of IE...I can't tell you how many times I've had to go "fix" my website designs because of IE6...it drives me completely insane. On the other hand, you simply cannot ignore these things. Being a good web designer means you unfortunately need to compensate.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (3, Insightful)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155571)

Yeah, and if everybody keep thinking that then IE will never go away. Just display the message "Your are trying to view this webpage with a non-standard browser. Please use Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome or Opera." Seriously, is that so hard? Even Google did this trick with YouTube for IE6. Well... if Google can do that then why can't you?

Re:Incompatibility Problems (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155793)

THIS A MILLION TIMES! Mod parent to infinity!

Why the hell can't people see such a simple thing?
You can target IE on the server side and give them a message saying the site may not be compatible with their browser, then some links to better browsers with a very simple description of why to switch. (basically textual terrorism, "SWITCH OR OSAMA BIN LADEN WILL USE YOUR COMPUTER FOR TERRORISM!")

Oh, but apparently people are STILL living in the age of ignorance.
Screw them and their shitty web developing methods, they are the cancer holding back the evolution of the web.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (4, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155595)

I'll agree you don't want to alienate your audience just because they're using a broken browser, but that is not what being a "good" web designer is about.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29156103)

Most "good" web designers I know alienate everybody.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (2, Interesting)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155683)

On the other hand, you simply cannot ignore these things. Being a good web designer means you unfortunately need to compensate.

That depends on what audience you're targeting. If you're building a website for a government institution, then yes, you need to support IE, including IE6. If, on the other hand, you have commercial considerations, and can deliver a real *web app* by dropping IE, then you have some thinking to do. Maybe you could just drop IE6 -- if youtube can do it then it's probably a safe move. But if you know that you can provide a really significant improvement in usability by supporting only modern/compliant browsers, then being a "good web designer" would be to tell IE users that in order to fully experience this particular site, they need a better platform.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (5, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156059)

Sorry, I once worked on a site, where we got 16 million visits *a day*! And that's only for the top country.

And your attitude is the very reason we are in this situation.
You always cave in, when you fear you could lose some users. It's so pathetic.

No, don't make links non-underlined! We will lose users!
No, don't stop supporting that browser! We will lose users!
No, don't change the design! We will lose users!
etc, etc, etc.

It's the knock-out argument for all change.

And while others innovate, you keep running behind them, always trying to catch up.
While your user base turns into the most stubborn, spoiled and dumb that is possible.
They will totally dominate you instead of you dominating them.

If you ever read something about leadership, you will understand, that you can only lead, if you do what *you* want, and stand behind that, not caring what the mob/crowd thinks.
Because they will *want* to follow you, if you are a role model, *knowing* what is right.
Of course this won't give you *all* users. Because when you're greedy and want them all, it's pretty much guaranteed that you will be left with even less than if you would have just let those follow you, that want you for what you are.

Yes, it's the same thing as in love and friendship relationships.

And as always, this time it's the leaders again, who will drop support for the IE first. Those sites, where people don't go because the sites are trying to do it right for everybody, but because they're so cool and worth so much to them, that people will do anything to still be able to use their site.
And soon you will follow them. When you notice that half your user base is already lost to them.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29156097)

These are also the type of people who will listen to a pop-up that tells them that their computer is infected with viruses and that they need to install some fake anti-virus program to fix it. So you have a simple solution to getting them to upgrade: a pop-up that tells them that their computer is broken and needs IE8/Firefox/Chrome to fix it. Use their ignorance for their own good.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29156139)

There could be a warning. Like googlemaps does when it feels your browser crumble under the javascript load. Only browser-specific. Something like:

"Slow? That's because of all the emulation layers. Your browser doesn't implement current web standards."

"Does this page look broken? We've done our best to adapt it to IE, but maybe you should switch to a browser that displays standard HTML out of the box."

Re:Incompatibility Problems (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156361)

The problem is that some website developers don't understand what they were hired to do. Their job isn't to pick the winners and losers in the browser market, but to maximize the number of visitors to their employer's site.

Only in the wacky world of web culture would providing content for the most common tool be considered an annoying afterthought in favor of also-ran tools. It's not about which browser is best, it's about which browser makes your company more competitive.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156523)

The most common tool is soon going to be the also ran vs the plethora of standards compliant browsers. They're pretty much equal at this point.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (2, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155477)

I'm totally down with that... but my boss wouldn't be. I still have to make sure our sites work in IE and FF. :(

Re:Incompatibility Problems (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155535)

Not until Firefox makes significant impact on large corporate installations. I work with quite a few large companies as a consultant and it's IE, IE and then some more IE. A few have Firefox optionally installed but always the blue E. The only good news I do have is that when they do have Firefox installed, it's normally a fairly recent version since they have IE as fallback and don't have to worry about backwards compatibility for Firefox.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155561)

I work for a large US national lab and for a period of about two months they blocked IE7 and forced you to go to either firefox or IE8 to surf the web. (and yes, it was suggested in that order.)

Re:Incompatibility Problems (1)

majesticmerc (1353125) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155633)

It would be easier for them to just add SVG support.

Can we get rid of IE already, please? Just stop caring about it, and use open standards. If they won't adapt, tough luck.

I care about Internet Explorer because even though I do want to code to standards, I don't want to alienate over 60% of my audience [hitslink.com] .

Re:Incompatibility Problems (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155711)

I care about Internet Explorer because even though I do want to code to standards, I don't want to alienate over 60% of my audience.

So, if those people suddenly couldn't use half their favorite websites properly, and all of them had a disclaimer saying "This site only uses international standards. If you have problems, please try another browser.", how long would it take for most of them to do so?

IE had an impact on web developers for way too fucking long. It's about time we change that. BTW, last I heard IE8 actually has some decent standards support, so it might not be that hard to switch. And even Microsoft thinks IE6 needs to die already.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156389)

"So, if those people suddenly couldn't use half their favorite websites properly, and all of them had a disclaimer saying "This site only uses international standards. If you have problems, please try another browser.", how long would it take for most of them to do so?"

That's very unlikely to happen simply because a competitor would come along and say "Switch to our site and you can continue using the browser you already own".

Besides, I thought not having a choice is MS's rap.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (1)

eugene2k (1213062) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155785)

All the web-designers really need to do to get rid of IE is use this:

<!--[if IE]>
<H1> You are using a non-standard compliant browser. This web-site requires a standards-compliant browser such as <a href="http://getfirefox.com">Mozilla Firefox</a> or <a href="http://opera.com">Opera</a></h1>
<![endif]-->

Sadly, web-designers try to stay compatible with IE which in turn makes it good enough for to view the web most people.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155417)

A more accurate question would be, "How long until Microsoft enforces incompatibility with the web again?"

Re:Incompatibility Problems (0, Troll)

BillGod (639198) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155501)

Internet Explorer's lack of built-in support for SVG was keeping it away from mainstream use on the web.

Since when is IE NOT mainstream? They have over 90% of the market? I get it.. they don't follow the rules and IE sux and everyone should use firefox or opera but to call IE not mainstream is if nothing else a bit odd.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (2, Informative)

Fallen Seraph (808728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155583)

Internet Explorer's lack of built-in support for SVG was keeping it away from mainstream use on the web.

Since when is IE NOT mainstream? They have over 90% of the market? I get it.. they don't follow the rules and IE sux and everyone should use firefox or opera but to call IE not mainstream is if nothing else a bit odd.

Ok, now try READING the summary instead of skimming it.
They're saying IE's lack of built-in support for SVG was keeping SVG from mainstream use.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156063)

And they're fixing this with a plugin? I'm confused, because the last time I ran IE was several years ago and back then it supported SVG just fine, via a plugin from Adobe [adobe.com] . The only limitation was that, because it was a plugin, the SVG had to be in a separate file, you couldn't mix SVG and XHTML in the same XML document. You also couldn't use SVG for site layout and properly embed HTML in it, as you can in a browser that supports SVG natively. So, what advantage does a new Google SVG plugin over an old Adobe SVG plugin? I'd be very surprised if Google supports more of the (massive and crazy) SVG spec than Adobe.

Re:Incompatibility Problems (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156181)

Windows, not IE, IE is down to 60% and losing ground. And that ignores the mobile market (dominated by Opera, Safari and Fennec, I think more or less in that order).

Re:Incompatibility Problems (2, Interesting)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156269)

They have over 90% of the market?

90%? What? That's a bit odd. Really, it's <70% and dropping like a rock.

See for yourself here [wikimedia.org] . (Requires SVG-capable browser.)

New God (Re:Incompatibility Problems) (1)

Informative (1347701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156401)

You need to switch to a new god. Bill has fallen out of favor.

good (1)

Errtu76 (776778) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155209)

Now Microsoft doesn't need to do it anymore. Is this a good thing then? Nice move on Google's part though.

Re:good (4, Insightful)

rvw (755107) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155263)

Now Microsoft doesn't need to do it anymore. Is this a good thing then? Nice move on Google's part though.

It's a bad thing that Google needs to fix basic functionality in a competitor's product. But it shows one more time why Google is good and why Microsoft is mediocre.

Re:good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155401)

I see what you did there!

Re:good (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155465)

You can say what you want about the Google Library project, but the important thing to note is that it's finally gotten people in the mainstream industry to begin talking about the merits/drawbacks of extended copyright terms, and more importantly, compelled a number of very high-profile players to join [slashdot.org] the Internet Archive's "open" effort to digitize out-of-print books.

It might be convoluted, but the Google Library effort will be a very good thing if it fails, thanks to the dialogue that it's spurred.

Re:good (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155499)

Is SVG support really considered basic functionality in a web browser? Gif and Jpeg, I'd call those basic functionality for sure.

Re:good (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155723)

As a website builder, svg is more then just pictures, if i had it available to me i would create entire websites using it. ( xhtml+svg )

why?

because then i can finally present people with websites that look exactly the same everywhere and fill your entire browser screen.
dynamic design, dynamic fonts, dynamic everything. no more fixed layout design.

While i don't thing this new plugin is going to be the holy grail, it love to see them push in the right direction :)

Re:good (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155933)

Is SVG support really considered basic functionality in a web browser? Gif and Jpeg, I'd call those basic functionality for sure.

Okay... But in a modern webbrowser, yes!
Especially, when you advertise for your browser by saying that it is more compatible than it's competitors...

I know MS is pure evil, and doesn't care... But isn't just a little embarrassing when your competitors patches your browser using Javascript and Flash...

Re:good (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156087)

If having a plugin means Microsoft doesn't need to implement it, then the existence of the several-year-old plugin from Adobe [adobe.com] has been doing that already. Looking at the project page, it seems like using this in IE means that the entire SVG part of the site ends up being rendered in an SVG-supporting browser implemented in Flash. Umm, yay?

Lame. (5, Informative)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155215)

From the project page: "No downloads or plugins are necessary other than Flash ..."

Re:Lame. (3, Interesting)

Bjrn (4836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155259)

Yes rendering is done by Flash. But since Flash is installed in about 95% of computers that is not much of a problem. Not that I'm a big fan of Flash though.

Re:Lame. (1)

condition-label-red (657497) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155485)

If this works out, it allows one to move away from static image rendering on server-side just so IE will "see" the SVG document. *THIS* is a big win!

Re:Lame. (4, Funny)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155639)

Oh cool, so I can install Flash, explorercanvas [google.com] , and now SVG Web, and I'll finally have a browser that is half-way up to date.

Google: Please release V8 as a plugin for IE, along with CSS compatibility. Actually, scratch that -- please release Chrome as a plugin for IE.

Re:Lame. (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155941)

Google: Please release V8 as a plugin for IE, along with CSS compatibility. Actually, scratch that -- please release Chrome as a plugin for IE.

Yes... let's make a javascript accelerator for IE using Flash :)

Re:Lame. (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156091)

You already can, to some degree. Write the functions within Flash (in actionscript, which is also ECMAScript), and send the arguments to the functions that are within the .swf file. It's been done to hide/obfuscate/compact code (though it's not compiled, it's byte code, so it's not really hidden). This way the Flash VM does the processing, not the browser. You'd really need significant separation in functionality in order to improve performance (something that could be done entirely within javascript, and not require access to the browser/DOM), but it's possible.

Campaign donor-independent formats (1)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155681)

Yes rendering is done by Flash. But since Flash is installed in about 95% of computers that is not much of a problem. Not that I'm a big fan of Flash though.

Flash is not a campaign donor-independent file format.

Re:Lame. (2, Interesting)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155691)

I am part of the 95% of users with Flash, but I don't like it. I use Firefox, so I shouldn't have to enable Flash to view SVG documents, but the same could be said for watching videos and navigating a website.

My concern is that many websites that use SVG will require Flash on all browsers, not just the ones using IE.

Re:Lame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155833)

Maybe you should RTFA, or rather view the presentation.. It is javascript for browsers that DO NOT have native SVG support; You add it to your page and SVG just works, the page itself doesn't change at all.

Re:Lame. (3, Informative)

jopsen (885607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155959)

My concern is that many websites that use SVG will require Flash on all browsers, not just the ones using IE.

Quote from the quick start:

By default we use the Flash based renderer on Internet Explorer while using the native SVG support on other browsers like Firefox and Safari.

You can override this manually, but why would anyone do that for other purposes than debugging...?

Re:Lame. (1)

Bjrn (4836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156437)

You can override this manually, but why would anyone do that for other purposes than debugging...?

For at least two reasons, incompatibility between various browsers, or missing functionality in some browser. Firefox doesn't support SVG defined fonts yet, for example. Hopefully this is just a passing phase.

Re:Lame. (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155725)

To be more precise : the people worried about flash installed on their computers usually don't use IE. So this is a non issue.

Re:Lame. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155279)

Well according to Adobe (Yes, Adobe) Flash Content works on 99% of the browsers. I imagine Slashdotters to be the 1 remaining percent though =D

Re:Lame. (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155329)

indeed, I suspect the overlap between the 5% without flash and IE users is minimal.

Re:Lame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155383)

I would disagree. I would argue that, other than the Lynx users, most people without Flash are I.E. users because, just like they don't know enough to install a new browser, they don't know how to install a plugin.

Re:Lame. (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155457)

Just click on the yellow bar that's saying...

"DON'T click herE!1! It could KILL your compuTER!!!!1!!!!1"

That's what they usually do to install the latest WinAntivirus, so they should be able to install plugins the same way.... :-)

Re:Lame. (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155739)

You haven't been keeping up to date with the *hip* phishing sites. They'll have an arrow pointing to that yellow bar and saying "Hi! Look at the shiny pictures! Do this and that with that yellow bar to see more shiny pictures!"

(*and by "shiny pictures" I mean porn)

Re:Lame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155419)

Surely a pure Javascript rendrer would be a better option? you try...

Re:Lame. (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155427)

From the project page: "No downloads or plugins are necessary other than Flash ..."

Which means that the SVG support could just as well be integrated into Flash itself - the one plug-in every browser must support.

No matter how loudly the geek in the back row moans and groans in complaint.

Re:Lame. (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155967)

The plugin uses native SVG support if available.

Re:Lame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155463)

Yeah, you're right. They should have chosen Silverlight, obviously...

Re:Lame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155517)

How lame is that? It works with every computer that matters.

Did you install a 3rd party plugin lately? (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155579)

Try to make a user to install any plugin in age of 2009 or better, an OS vendor to include it on their default OS install. Please try and see what happens.

One of the coolest things Google did is Google Earth plugin, perfect for directions and I tested it on one of the sites I manage for 2-3 days. Do you know what I had in return? Mails accusing me of installing spyware/virus to their systems ironically from @gmail.com! I ended up waiting for some kind of flash implementation and rm -rf 'ed all.

BTW, you are bitching about Flash for what reason? Being 3rd party plugin, abused right? Just watch how your cool, open SVG is used once the advertising agencies/designers figure it has 90% reach.

Re:Did you install a 3rd party plugin lately? (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155735)

Flash sucks ass on Linux, because Adobe apparently hates Linux or something. The same sites run at maybe a tenth to a hundredth the speed on Linux that they do on Windows on the same hardware. I have never understood how Flash could consume 180+MB and 85% of a Core 2 Duo for a little motorbike game anyway... and I'm talking about on Windows here. But a lot of flash stuff that just flies along on Windows is unusable on Linux. Most of it is crap software, but so is flash.

Re:Lame. (1)

doti (966971) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155883)

Lame? Not for *this* reason.

Remember we are talking about people that still use IE.
What's reliance on Flash compared to that?
Besides, every user running IE has flash enabled already anyway.

(I didn't RTFA, but I suppose it uses this Flash-based SVG renderer only if the browser doesn't support SVG natively.)

Funny thing (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155239)

IE used to have SVG support via an Adobe plugin. Then they bought the Flash crap and suddenly the SVG plugin went away. Can't have competition I guess.

Re:Funny thing (4, Insightful)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155317)

That plugin was always slow and only supported a very limited subset of svg.

Re:Funny thing (2)

British (51765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155523)

The Adobe Flash plug-in was terrible. I had to use it when I was testing a SVG drawing ap. One problem noted was that nothing showed up until it was entirely loaded. For larger images, this was frustrating, as it made it slower than Flash.

I wish SVG would have taken off, but sadly, it didn't.

Good news for Microsoft (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155241)

But Internet Explorer's lack of built-in support for SVG was keeping it away from mainstream use on the web.

Yes! Internet Explorer may finally be ready for mainstream use.

Flash-based... (4, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155247)

It's not bad performance, and useful for applets, but you don't want to use it for layout unless having dozens of little flash applets all over the page turns you on.

Re:Flash-based... (1)

PouletFou (1221320) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155273)

At least, web developers can now use SVG without worrying about browser support for IE. If the page is viewed with a svg supporting browser, the svg rendering will be done by the browser, otherwise it will be done by flash. It's up to anyone to choose his browser.

Re:Flash-based... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155537)

In other words, this means you can use SVG for situations where you are only using it in one or two places on the page.

For people who are looking to use SVG in layout (eg, to replace bitmapped images in borders) this is not useful.

Re:Flash-based... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155281)

you don't want to use it for layout unless having dozens of little flash applets all over the page turns you on.

Excessive use of flash is the only thing that works for my impotency so I stand by this move.

Re:Flash-based... (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155515)

If I told you Flash is actually a vector graphics plugin originally?

This is what Flash is, originally
http://www.4dm.com/files/tech/blue.htm [4dm.com] (Flash plugin needed), it is "future splash".

Look to CPU usage having just that original flash open in browser, ou will be surprised. Flash is doing its own job, what it was originally designed for.

Re:Flash-based... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155701)

But from Google's point of view it is a perfect move : now people will see SVG enabled sites as rendering correctly, while blaming the slowness of IE

Would be nice if it worked though... (1)

KazW (1136177) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155269)

Using Firefox 3.5 on Kubuntu 9.04 64 bit = no love, only "browser native svg" rendering works on the demo page, none of the samples work.

Re:Would be nice if it worked though... (1)

KazW (1136177) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155303)

Never mind, it just took forever to load the flash at the online demo.

Re:Would be nice if it worked though... (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155453)

It doesn't work with Konqueror on my system (Debian AMD64 KDE 4.3)

I tried disabling netescape plugins so I could try native as well. No joy

So could this be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155289)

the year of IE on the desktop?

Re:So could this be... (0, Redundant)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155469)

But Internet Explorer's lack of built-in support for SVG was keeping it away from mainstream use on the web.

I parsed that sentence the exact same way, intially, assuming it was a joke from the poster.

Then I realized after a few seconds that it's not Internet Explorer that was kept away from mainstream web use, but SVG that was kept away from mainstream web use _by_ Internet Explorer....

Slow city! (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155305)

The on-demand rasterization of the SVG document tree elements is done using eigenvector calculations on semi-markov matrices. Since javascript is a loosely typed language, this brings in huge amounts of processor overhead on every pixel. This is a no-go for netbooks or lower-powered desktop machines. An interesting proof-of-concept hack, but not practical -- typical Google behavior.

Re:Slow city! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155429)

Wrong. The on-demand rasterization of the SVG document tree elements is done using eigenvalue calculations on full-markov matrices, making it quite fast.

DNR (-1, Troll)

Smivs (1197859) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155307)

A terminally sick patient in Hospital will often have a 'DNR' (Do Not Resucitate) notice placed over the bed to avoid them suffering needlessly. Shouldn't the same be done for I.E?

DNR in MS next set of EULAs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155737)

A terminally sick patient in Hospital will often have a 'DNR' (Do Not Resucitate) notice placed over the bed to avoid them suffering needlessly. Shouldn't the same be done for I.E?

More than just IE needs that. If Gates wants to be truly philanthropic, he'll require that all new Microsoft EULAs to require the agreeing party become full organdonors and wear a DNR Medical Alert bracelet or necklace [americanmedical-id.com] . That way the MSCEs would not be a total waste of oxygen.

Could this be ... (2, Insightful)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155355)

... the long-awaited dawn of SVG animation challenging Flash, (and Silverlight)?

Re:Could this be ... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156299)

Just in case Flash wasn't slow enough for you, now you can use an SVG viewer written in Flash! Maybe this is Google's way of making Chrome seem much faster than IE; make IE run a plugin inside another plugin for stuff Chrome does natively...

An interesting link.. (4, Interesting)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155399)

Despite the video being very very dry, there was an interesting link in the middle of the presentation: http://downloadstats.mozilla.com/ [mozilla.com]

That site features real time download statistics for FF3.5. The interesting part is, that the map at the top is rendered in real SVG combined with canvas (for the dots).

About this flash based library: it's strange. At the demo page the native rendering of SVG failed and only the flash version worked on my FF 3.0.x.. Not a problem with my browser though, as the site I mentioned at the top as well as Wikipedia SVG's work fine. Something is not right with this library, but interesting non the less.

Re:An interesting link.. (2, Informative)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155503)

Interestingly enough, the "use your mouse to zoom" on that map does not zoom within Google Chrome.

Re:An interesting link.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155599)

There is no svg in that page. It is all canvas.

Re:An interesting link.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29156317)

the map at the top is rendered in real SVG combined with canvas (for the dots)

Nice, but where's the SVG part in "SVG+Canvas world map"? I don't see any SVG nodes in the live DOM, nor SVG constructors in http://downloadstats.mozilla.com/js/moz.stat.map.js . And those sparkline s would be just as nice in SVG, with the additional benefit of being accessible over the DOM.

Actual Link to the Demos (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155415)

The summary misses the actual link to the demos. Here it is:
http://codinginparadise.org/projects/svgweb/samples/demo.html

Becoming AOL (4, Insightful)

geophile (16995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155459)

Microsoft is becoming AOL. A crappy, proprietary, expensive, unreliable impediment to getting onto the internet. Their applications have plateaued, and open-source desktop and web-based competitors are improving rapidly. They'll hang on longer, but they've begun their long decline.

Know your user base (2, Interesting)

Temujin_12 (832986) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155765)

When discussions of supporting various versions of browsers come up, it is important to know what browsers are actually visiting your site. Earlier this year IE6 users to one of my sites dipped below 10%. Since then, it has now been ~3% for the past month.

Now I no longer stress about IE6. I'll check it to make sure the site is at least functional and usable in IE6. But I no longer strive for pixel-perfect compatibility. It's simply not worth it.

You can spend the extra hours getting it to work for all browsers and end up using hacks and mangling your HTML/CSS to do so, but if all of that work is only for a small percentage of your user base, it is not worth it.

Misleading Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155775)

"Google Brings SVG Support To IE"

The project is hosted at google code, but this is not a google project, is it?

Re:Misleading Headline (1)

orta (786013) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156099)

I thought that, but one of the project owners has a google.com email address

Boon for SVG deploability (1)

mjrauhal (144713) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155865)

Now, I'm among the first to go "meh" about their use of Flash. But.

This SVG kludge certainly improves the chances of web sites deploying, where applicable, SVG solutions instead of going directly for Flash (which is SVG's main proprietary vector graphics competitor on the web). After all, if your SVG/SMIL etc will play in Flash, suddenly your installed base of capable viewers is at least that of Flash.

'course, more quality SVG tools are needed also but this is an important step towards more openness on the web.

"Nothing to download"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155903)

Do they think we're stupid? Or is Google redefining words now?

OK, actually I think this is great, just bitching about semantics.

Or maybe it's not so great. MSIE shouldn't be artificially kept alive.

SVG support in other browsers isn't very good (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156055)

As much as I like the *idea* of SVG, it doesn't seem to work particularly well, even in browsers where it is "officially" supported.

Safari tends to choke on complicated images, and cannot zoom in on full-size SVG images, making it quite useless for reading maps and the like. Additionally, I've noticed that most current platforms do not include any sort of utility to view/edit/rasterize SVG images outside of the web browser. Firefox 3.5 seems to work fine, but I seem to recall older versions having issues. Here's a reasonably complex image to try for yourself [wikimedia.org] .

Should we just focus on the Canvas element instead? Many browsers already have partial support, with a better/standardized specification on the way in HTML5. Some Javascript trickery should be able to add full support to older browsers.

Re:SVG support in other browsers isn't very good (1)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156251)

As much as I like the *idea* of SVG, it doesn't seem to work particularly well, even in browsers where it is "officially" supported.

Indeed. Of all the browsers that support SVG, for example, Opera is the only one that accepts SVG images from background-image CSS attributes. See this [oblomov.eu] for example.

Safari tends to choke on complicated images, and cannot zoom in on full-size SVG images, making it quite useless for reading maps and the like. Additionally, I've noticed that most current platforms do not include any sort of utility to view/edit/rasterize SVG images outside of the web browser. Firefox 3.5 seems to work fine, but I seem to recall older versions having issues. Here's a reasonably complex image to try for yourself [wikimedia.org] .

The image renders perfectly in Opera, and also in FF 3.0.12 (Iceweasel branding). The rendering is very slow, and faulty, on Konqueror.

Should we just focus on the Canvas element instead? Many browsers already have partial support, with a better/standardized specification on the way in HTML5. Some Javascript trickery should be able to add full support to older browsers.

There are many possible employments of SVG that have absolutely nothing to do with Canvas, so no. Fix SVG. (This is not to say that Canvas shouldn't be properly implemented too.)

Re:SVG support in other browsers isn't very good (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156263)

You want to use a better browser.

Opera 9.54 rendered it in no time at all (nowhere near the download time, for instance), allows you to zoom in /out, pan, etc. immediately once it's loaded. SVG is obviously dependent on the number of objects and size of the rendered image, whereas bitmaps are pretty much only reliant on the size of the rendered image, so complex scenes *will* take longer to draw. But with decent code, it shouldn't be a problem at all and vector-based-desktops are the up-and-coming thing.

Re:SVG support in other browsers isn't very good (1)

rliden (1473185) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156545)

Even FF 3.5 doesn't render the graphic properly for me. In the legend the type below the line "For legibility all 'streets' and 'st' markers" is garbled. Why doesn't this work 100% of the time? Isn't there a standard (W3C, etc) that could be referenced?

JavaScrpit + IE = Barf (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29156347)

Last I checked, IE had crappy JavaScript performance.

it's an experimental alpha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29156473)

It's still an experimental alpha at this stage, according to the project page. Promising though

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...