Beta
×

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!

Mozilla Gets (Beta) Native SVG support

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the so-check-it-out-and-complain-constructively dept.

Mozilla 321

Rushuru writes "Mozilla is getting a beta native SVG support. Previously one had to use 3rd party plugins such as that from Adobe, and they only worked on windows. SVG is similar in scope to Flash, but it is a W3 recommendation (i.e. a standard) and uses an open format. The project page has more info."

cancel ×

321 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Does anybody actually do anything in SVG? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483360)

Website examples?

Re:Does anybody actually do anything in SVG? (3, Informative)

pen (7191) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483383)

mozilla svg samples [croczilla.com]

Re:Does anybody actually do anything in SVG? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483385)

Check the SodiPodi galleries [sourceforge.net] . They got all sorts of stuff including flags, corporate logos, animals, tux, and cartoons.

Re:Does anybody actually do anything in SVG? (4, Interesting)

mrjb (547783) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483392)

It being an open format might help gaining acceptance, as happened with .png (although some popular commercial browsers have flakey support).

It's going to be a long, long struggle against the de facto industry standard, even though projects like sodipodi [sourceforge.net] might help it.

Not everyone understands why following standards is important. The countless broken pages I've seen because somebody decided that using JavaScript was much cooler than using HTML that actually worked... Also, I've seen many companies giving up on flash sites in favor of a simple (but OK looking) HTML-based site that works. I guess the success of the standard depends less on the technology than to the way it is applied.

Re:Does anybody actually do anything in SVG? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483494)

It being an open format might help gaining acceptance, as happened with .png (although some popular commercial browsers have flakey support).

The first time I read this sentence I thought you were being sarcastic. Because we all know that the web is just filled with png graphics.

Re:Does anybody actually do anything in SVG? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483542)

I bet more of them switch because these "all flash, no content" web sites absolutely suck in terms of web searching. If I can't navigate your web site because I keep JS off and don't install flash, Googlebot, MSNbot, and the rest can't either.

For these extreme idiots that create a top-level splash page (a lame thing in its own right) with a Javascript redirect instead of a 301/302 header, that means their entire site is now hidden from bots and people who browse like me.

Learn SVG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483571)

This article [microsoft.com] got mentioned in another thread and I read it and rather enjoyed it. Recommended.

W3G (-1, Offtopic)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483361)

R0x0rs

what's for breakfast? fp! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483362)

Join the SJP Today! SJP (SJP) is the first organization which
gathers Straight Jews from all over the world for this simple goal - being totally def. [urbandictionary.com]

Are you a member of the GNAA?

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may have just been beat to first post by the SJP!
Join SJP (Straight Jew Posse) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time SJP member.
GNAA [isgay.com] (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. And If they can accomplish that, just imagine what Jews can do!

Facts:
1. Jews have their own country, one that doesn't suck, like all those African ones.
2. There are a lot of Smart Jews, [jewhoo.com] which is bragable.(click on Science)
3. Whereas the GNAA undoubtedly likes to eat pork rinds and watermelon, we Jews prefer such fine cuisine as schmaltz and gribbenes [celebritydeli.com]
4. Jews have been kicked out of more countries than anyone else.

Join the SJP today! Why not? It's quick and easy - only 4 simple steps!

First, you have to be a Jew. Messianic Jews don't count and will be shot in the face. You're Christians. Don't steal our Jews. [jewsforjudaism.com]

Second, you need to be a heterosexual, if you're male. However there is evidence in the Torah that lesbianism is ok with G-D. So Kike Dykes are cool with the SJP.

Third, you need to download Licensed to Ill [amazon.com] by the Beastie Boys, because rap is best done by Jews.

Fourth, send an email to SJP4eva2003@yahoo.com listing your qualifications and what you feel you can bring to the SJP.
Of course, dual membership between the SJP and the GNAA is theoretically possible, but not recommended.

If you are having trouble locating #SJP, the official Straight Jew Posse IRC channel, that would be because it doesn't exist. IRC is for niggers.

If you have any Matzah Ball Soup and would like to support SJP, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by a proud member of SJP
________________________________________________
|________________________________________________|
|__Awesome ascii-art Star of David Coming Soon___|
|________________________________________________'

Re:what's for breakfast? fp! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483365)

Gah! i didn't even fail it to the GNAA! Where my nigs at?

Re:what's for breakfast? fp! (-1, Offtopic)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483369)

Yawn

Bandwith eating useless animations (0, Troll)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483363)

Great. This will breed even more of those.

What's wrong with static, text and jpgs only pages?

Re:Bandwith eating useless animations (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483374)

"Great. This will breed even more of those."

Hell yeah. Is there perhaps some sort of `default to `skip intro`` option in Firebird planned so I don't even have to be aware of the existance of this content-free uselessness?

Re:Bandwith eating useless animations (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483538)

Why are you using the accent grave character ` as an apostrophe?

Re:Bandwith eating useless animations (4, Insightful)

m00nun1t (588082) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483379)

SVG is a great format for reporting. A much cleaner & potentially more interactive way of displaying complex data than just "static, text and jpgs". Check out the adobe SVG site (http://www.adobe.com/svg), they have some great examples.

And yes, people will use it as a flash wannabe. But that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned - moving from a semi-proprietary format (I know the flash format is *kinda* open) to a standards based format - and XML based, no less.

Re:Bandwith eating useless animations (4, Funny)

jpnews (647965) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483381)

"What's wrong with static, text and jpgs only pages?"

Yeah, I agree totally. That's why I read the newspaper.

Re:Bandwith eating useless animations (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483389)

There's nothing inherently wrong with the technology just because some people will use it for stupid things.

Your post was stupid, but I don't think we should abolish the alphabet because of it.

Some things are better represented in vector graphics and this can be a great tool for that type of thing. Why waste bandwidth transmitting the same map over and over (for different zooms) when you could just get one that is zoomable on the client end? Need a printable diagram ... get one that looks good on screen and also prints well, instead of the horrible blocky printed crap you get with GIF/JPG.

Re:Bandwith eating useless animations (4, Interesting)

big.ears (136789) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483393)

I know this is a troll, but I'll bite.

SVG is often takes much less room than the equivalent jpg/png/gif. It has great potential to eliminate the need for a lot of crappy graphics hacks used out there. For example, once easy-to-script graphing libraries are available, you will be able to make svg graphs of real-time data (of web activity, stock prices, etc.) instead of using bitmaps. For much data, this will be much smaller and more aesthetically pleasing. Some large interesting background images etc. will be possible because they are not constrained by the actual size of the image, just the detail. Although svg is being compared to Flash, it is really more proper to think of it as an embeddable .eps or something; I'm not even sure if it handles animation and I don't think it can embed sound events.

Re:Bandwith eating useless animations (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483534)

and instantly break compatability with the older machines out there....

SVG has some great potential, and it will be nice in a couple of years.

until then, your thoughts are as bad as a fricking IE web page designer....

SVG SUCKS for handicap access sites. and most web jcokeys aren't smart enough to put good tags seperately or build secondary pages for those getting the page read to them by a speech box or the braille box.

but hey, who give a crap about the blind..... right?

Re:Bandwith eating useless animations (4, Informative)

jd142 (129673) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483512)

I would assume that just like Mozilla let's you block graphics it will eventually let you turn off svg's. I also just found out about the flash blocker, [texturizer.net]
Flash Cick to View. It's part of the Firebird extensions but also works great on plain mozilla 1.4 if you get it from the author's page [mielczarek.org] .

With no popups, no ads and no flash, the web is usable.

There is a Geek God (3, Funny)

ovoskeuiks (665553) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483368)

It was only a few hours ago I was reading a post in another slashdot article that was asking for SVG support in browsers looks like his prayers were answered

That's a mass-destruction weapon ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483411)

... that is threatening the IE empire ;-) :o)

-SLK

Save the world (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483483)

Well in that case, /. should post articles that we need world peace and stuff like that.

Re:Save the world (2, Funny)

cyb97 (520582) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483518)

Just download the worldpeace plugin from mozilla.org... it sorts out everything...

Re:Save the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483565)

Actually, now that Moz has SVG support and even a built-in kitchen sink [slashdot.org] , the only feature remaining is a world-peace button. Click on it, and presto, all wars will vanish!

All except the browser wars of course.

Hmm... (1, Funny)

Pinguu (677142) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483372)

Since you have come this far, you probably already know that SVG stands for Scalable Vector Graphics
No, actually I just clicked the link...

ex-Employees are fools! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483373)

Are these thrown out fools still working without payment on this project ? First getting employed by AOL and Netscape.. did the dirty work and then slapped up their ass.. Fools!

SVG/Flash (0, Redundant)

Karamchand (607798) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483375)

SVG in combination is more like Flash, not just SVG. SVG does not have any animation capabilities.

Re:SVG/Flash (5, Informative)

andrewl6097 (633663) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483387)

Err...no. From the article:

SVG is similar in scope to Macromedia's proprietary Flash technology: among other things it offers anti-aliased rendering, pattern and gradient fills, sophisticated filter-effects, clipping to arbitrary paths, text and animations.

Re:SVG/Flash (1, Troll)

Karamchand (607798) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483409)

Read this [w3.org] : The Document Object Model (DOM) for SVG, which includes the full XML DOM, allows for straightforward and efficient vector graphics animation via scripting.

That's like saying you can make animations with HTML just because you can access HTML tags through the DOM and script them.

Re:SVG/Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483431)

Yes. Anything wrong with that?

Re:SVG/Flash (2, Informative)

__past__ (542467) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483439)

You are wrong, scripting is just one possibility. You can also write animations purely declaratively using elements like <animate> or <animateMotion>, see the animation chapter in the SVG spec [w3.org] . Another possibility is SMIL.

At last! (3, Insightful)

darnok (650458) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483382)

*Finally*, I can start saying SVG is going to be supported natively in a browser, and pushing through projects on that basis.

Until now, I've had to say you can use IE, then get an addon from Adobe. "What? Why doesn't MS support this SVG thing natively? What if Adobe decides to drop support for SVG; then what happens? ..."

This is the best news I've read on Slashdot for a while

Re:At last! (1)

Pflipp (130638) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483400)

The Adobe plugin also has some trouble scrolling. E.g. when you view an A4-sized graphic, and it doesn't fit on screen, no scrollbar appears. (This is for viewing SVG's directly; can't remember what went wrong when you saw them embedded in HTML; I just remember that this also didn't go OK, as I once tried to show a logo I had created in Sodipodi.)

Don't get your hopes up (1)

reynaert (264437) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483506)

If you'll read the page you'll see "SVG is not switched on by default in official Mozilla builds". It's been this way for months. I believe there are some legal problems, IIRC they're using a GPL'ed library to do the rendering or something.

Re:At last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483607)

Until now, I've had to say you can use IE, then get an addon from Adobe. "What? Why doesn't MS support this SVG thing natively? What if Adobe decides to drop support for SVG; then what happens? ..."

Never stopped anybody from using Flash. ("What? why doesn't MS support this Flash thing natively? What if Macromedia desides to drop support for Flash; then what happens?")

Firebird (1, Interesting)

n0nsensical (633430) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483386)

Is this going to be made a part of Mozilla Firebird too? I hope not, because wasn't the whole point of Phoenix to avoid all of these extra "features" and just make a fast, no-frills browser? This is hardly a critical feature since as was noted above few, if any other than the demonstration type, websites are using it, I don't think I want to see it if anyone does use it, and since there's no problem with a Flash plugin being an optional download, I don't see what the problem is with having SVG an optional download as well. Yeah, SVG is technically a W3C standard, but it's hardly a standard in actual web development.

Re:Firebird (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483399)

and why? because there is no cross platform working websolution for it.
So if it's by default in mozille (firebird), it might finally push SVG ... and make it what it is supposed to be, a webstandard.

And finally you don't have to use our redmonds frieds beloved software, to create dynamic( read: flash ( like )) pages.

damn if this ain't going to be standart (maybe you can get a option in Firebird or a compiler option like '--disable-svg' ) but might be you want '--disable-art-*' too... what ever :)

i'd be very sad if this would not become a part of mozilla.( firebird ) by default.

Standards (1)

n0nsensical (633430) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483434)

So if it's by default in mozille (firebird), it might finally push SVG ... and make it what it is supposed to be, a webstandard.

I think it's unlikely to become commonly used until it's in Internet Explorer, because, like it or not, the number of people using IE is still vastly greater than the number of people using Mozilla and variants. Until it's in IE, I think most web developers will just say, "Why not keep using Flash?" and do just that. It's a similar situation with PNG; even though PNG-32 has superior alpha channel support to GIF, you don't see many sites with variable transparency 32-bit PNGs [libpng.org] because IE still doesn't support them.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Flash (and all proprietary web formats, etc.) disappear today and be replaced by SVG, but I just don't think that's likely to happen in the near future. Actually, I think I'd love to see Flash disappear today and not be replaced by anything, but maybe that's just me. ;-)

Re:Standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483516)

since for dynamic webdevelopment, usage of xml as base data for the xsl sheets is commonly ( afaict ) used, i guess if svg is working correct in mozilla, those dynamic stuff might be the first one to have alternative svg sites. now imagine what happens if your boss comes along seeing you have a way better looking and nicer composed interface than he has with IE. Might be his reaction is: okay from now on we will use Firebird?. or will he call microsoft?
if he doesn't call microsoft and change to mozilla ( taking his company with him ), microsoft might figure out that their browser marketshare is shrinking and put a 'ms-like-working' svg interpreter into their IE, which by than will be the operating system. since firebird is getting faster alot of my friends changed to firebird, because the feel safer with firebird than with the IE.

and due to this i'd say there is a fair chance for the descibn to happen.

Re:Firebird (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483413)

I for my part hope it will be part of Firebird too! Firebird should support any cutting edge W3C standards and features as this is what distinguishes it most from IE.

Speed: I think it should be possible to implement SVG support in a way that the SVG code is only loaded when actually needed (think of an "internal" plug-in).

Whatsoever: Moore tells me that browser speed soon won't matter anyway ;)

Re:Firebird (1)

n0nsensical (633430) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483444)

Speed: I think it should be possible to implement SVG support in a way that the SVG code is only loaded when actually needed (think of an "internal" plug-in).

If they do put it in Firebird, I sure hope they do something like this. I hope we don't need another project to make a fast, non-bloated version of Mozilla, but probably not many people are going to argue that the old Mozilla is superior to Firebird.

Re:Firebird (1)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483424)

I hope that yes 'coz Firebird is going to be Mozilla 1.5 and we need to spread SVG all around ;-)

Re:Firebird (2, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483437)

I believe the current Mozilla and the Firebird branch share a codebase. In either case you can always decide to compile this in if you so wish but at least for now it shouldn't be compiled in by default. As always you have the choice of what comes in Mozilla.. because you have the source.

SVG makes as much sense to have compiled in as support for jpeg, gif, or png graphics. It's just a vector based image format.

Re:Firebird (5, Insightful)

jacksonyee (590218) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483488)

SVG is really much, much more than a vector based image format though; it's an entire animation/effects plugin which will work seamlessly with current standards such as XHTML, MathML, CSS, and JavaScript (ECMAScript if you wish to be technical).

Adobe has already placed some very nice demos [adobe.com] of embedding SVG within standard web pages. Take a look at some of the things that can be done with it, and you'll quickly see how the SVG standard can

  • Replace large graphics with smaller XML code and custom effects
  • Replace most of what Flash is: a proprietary language for interactive vector animation. The newer versions of Flash have some very nice extras, but for the most part, SVG can really dig into Macromedia's space if it's adopted by people other than just geeks, and being backed by Adobe is a very good sign.
  • Allow accessibility within stylized content. Very few Flash animations on the web nowadays have any type of accessible content.

As far as the extra size in download goes, most people have to download Acrobat Reader to read PDF files, which are very common on the web. If SVG ever achieves the same status, I will be very encouraged as a web designer.

Now, if they would only get X3D in order...

Luddite? (2, Insightful)

n0nsensical (633430) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483554)

So maybe I'm just a web Luddite who wants plain old text and images, but if the Mozilla developers manage to put default SVG support in Firebird while keeping it small and fast it'll be a good thing, even if it's still a while before we see widespread use of SVG. As long as there's a runtime option to turn it off. ;-)

Re:Luddite? (0)

n0nsensical (633430) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483612)

Why, back in my day, all we had was text and images! We didn't have no fancy SVG, Flash, or JavaScript; we had to wait all day in the snow to download our browsers on our 14.4 modems, and we LIKED IT! Kids these days...

Argh! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483388)

Flash is very bad.
Scripting on the web is bad.
Graphics on the web is mostly bad.
Standards are good.
Standards are very good.
(SVG == standard || DOM == standard) == argh, my hardcore XHTML/CSS brain can't take it!

Okay, Flash is bad. SVG is a standard, but it leads to flashlike sites, then it's bad, but that clashes with directive #1: If it's W3C Approved, then it's good, so... argh...

mozilla-bonobo (3, Informative)

Pflipp (130638) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483391)

You could already have seen some of SVG through the mozilla-bonobo plugin [nongnu.org] . As this plugin actually activates Eye Of Gnome for the image viewing, and EOG is actually more of a pixel-graphics viewer that happens to read SVG through the (still lagging) librsvg, the capacities are limited though.

For instance, you can only view SVG images as object tags, and complex stuff (like copied/ rotated graphics) aren't rendered well. (And it just so happens that Sodipodi produces SVG with a lot of copied/ rotated objects.)

Plotting against Microsoft (5, Funny)

NoTildeQuestionMark (624812) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483396)

If this SVG patch became fully useable for displaying animation, and then you could convince a really popular animation site (say, HSR [homestarrunner.com] ) to switch to SVG and recommend a switch to Mozilla for native support... well, then, open source could rule the world.

~

Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (1, Insightful)

Capt'n Hector (650760) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483397)

and yet people still use IE. As a web designer, I have to ask, "WHY!?"

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (5, Insightful)

DarkDust (239124) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483422)

and yet people still use IE. As a web designer, I have to ask, "WHY!?"

Simple: because people are fucking lazy ! They get their IE with their Windows, and they are just too lazy to download and install Mozilla or Opera (and they don't care about them since every web designer/developer out there supports IE with their web pages).

If someone visits my homepage with IE the background is replaced with simply white since IE can't handle transparent PNGs and a red warning box is diplayed explaining that IE is just not able to correctly display my homepage (while Mozilla, Opera and Konqueror do).

If more web-pages would do this people would finally think, but this will take some months. MicroSoft gladly doesn't want to update IE any more, so people have to wait for the next Windows to get an update to IE, which is due in 2005 I think. Lots of time which could make a difference if the other browser developers and web designers/developers use that time. And features like good SVG support could really be that difference (and tabs, and blocking of JavaScript pop-ups, and ...).

IE is out of date just now, but people don't care about this, that's the propblem...

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483517)

IE is just not able to correctly display my homepage (while Mozilla, Opera and Konqueror do).

Konqueror would probably crash before ever getting there.

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (1)

Izeickl (529058) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483561)

If you mean the homepage under your name then im viewing it just fine in IE. Ive installed Moz a number of times, used it for a week, then uninstalled it. Im not lazy, I just dont like it.

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483572)

MicroSoft gladly doesn't want to update IE any more, so people have to wait for the next Windows to get an update to IE, which is due in 2005 I think

No, MS isnt producing standalone versions of IE anymore, they are still updating it. They never said anything about not updating it, updates are still provided, you jsut cant go grab "IE7.0" as it wont exist in a single form.

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (2, Insightful)

eyeye (653962) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483585)

Here is my stoned idea.
say Opera includes SVG support and can slim back down a little in download size (I remember when it would fit on a floppy of course). I just downloaded the adobe SVG plugin which was somewhere over 2 megs.

Web designers like SVG and make sites with it. Now most people wont be able to see it without a plugin.

So the website says "you need to download software to view this content", the user click ok and it installs Opera with settings defaulted to being as similar as IE as possible.

The user might never even notice, but their browser will when they are ready have lots of extra features.

Disclaimers: I would have said firebird but its considerably bigger, I remain hopefull howevere.
I realise its a dodgy method of installing, almost like adware/spyware.

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (1)

Ramze (640788) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483610)

Unfortunately, it's been my experience that end-users don't even know the difference between what is on the internet and what is on their hard drive. They also don't know what Internet Explorer is. They just know to click on the funky blue E icon to get to the internet. I have the hardest time explaining to people that you can use several different programs to do the same thing & you can pick which one you like. Most people want to know which one is best, learn that, and never have to deal with the choice again.

It's sad, but most users don't know a lot about computers, installing things, and which programs do what... much less anything about web standards.

I just hope that computer classes in highschools and colleges will train the masses so that we won't have this problem in the next decade or so.

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (4, Insightful)

JimDabell (42870) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483432)

Because:

  • "What's Mozilla?"
  • "What's SVG?"
  • "But there aren't any pages using SVG that I want to see."
  • "Flash is good enough for me."
  • "I don't know how to / want to figure out how to install Mozilla."
  • "All my favourites/passwords/auto form-fillins are in Internet Explorer."
  • "Mozilla looks weird compared with all the other programs on my computer."
  • "My employers have already standardized on Internet Explorer."
  • "I have to use Internet Explorer to run some .hta programs that I rely on." (or substitute any proprietary technology supported by Internet Explorer).
  • "My bank's website doesn't say that I can use Mozilla with it, but they do say I can use Internet Explorer with it."
  • "Internet Explorer is already installed on my computer."

I'm a web developer too, and I hate having to deal with Internet Explorer too, but end-user inertia isn't something to dismiss as "people being stupid". You have to give them a reason to care enough to put effort into switching browsers.

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (3, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483452)

The real problem is that coders that develop for IE rarely check how pages work in anything else while decent developers check not only Mozilla but also IE and often Opera, Lynx, Konquerer, and whatever else they can get their hands on. Therefore IE users always have the best browsing experience.

I suggest anybody developing not-for-profit sites to simply save themselves the trouble and not make any special effort to support IE. Code to the standards. If IE can still show your page then great. If not then let the users know IE sucks - put a 'Works best with Mozilla.' button on your page to link to where users can download Mozilla. Circa 1997 gimmicks still work. ;)

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (1)

cyb97 (520582) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483527)

Even if they don't check (it's really not necessary), they should stick to writing (x)HTML that validates... that way you've got a good excuse and a clear consience when somebody comes running and complains about your site not working...

If it validates to a recent standard, it's pretty much the browsers fault and not the designer...

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483533)

What a crock of shit - if you're being paid to do something - make it work, despite who's fault it is. I'd fire you immediately if you didn't.

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483583)

Did you miss this bit:

I suggest anybody developing not-for-profit sites

Personally, I would fire somebody who demostrated exceptionally poor reading and comprehension skills.

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483486)

and yet people still use IE. As a web designer, I have to ask, "WHY!?"

Exactly what advantage is there that an IE user would recognize?

If you want to view SVG in IE, you just download the plugin from Adobe. Simple. If you use IE, then the fact that Adobe's plugin isn't open-source won't bug you any.

Moz/Firebird is my default browser, and I much prefer it to IE (and evangelize it whenever I get the chance) but I don't see how adding support for SVG to Mozilla puts it ahead of IE in the minds of pretty much anyone.

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (1)

joeykiller (119489) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483532)

and yet people still use IE. As a web designer, I have to ask, "WHY!?"
When you buy a car, the car is often delivered with a simple stereo system and a couple of speakers. Yet very few people decides to replace the stereo system with a CD changer and a six way speaker system. Why is that?

I don't think it has anything to do with ignorance or laziness. Apart from cost, guess it is because the built in system does the job adequately.

include it in the standard build - when it's done (5, Insightful)

wfmcwalter (124904) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483401)

SVG is a brilliant standard, and will go a long way to replace the web's millions of opaque flash and shockwave animations (and any number of "diagram" gifs) with something standard and accessible. I'm exceptionally frustrated that I can't realistically author mission-critical sites with SVG as a major (or even the entire) component.

I do, however, pray thay SVG isn't included into standard mozilla (or any other browser) until it's reached maturity (which its page indicates it's pretty far from). I spend too much of my time working around the half-assed CSS implementations of older netscape and IE browsers, and I don't want another decade of worrying about which part of the SVG standard was implemented buggily (sp?) by which version of which browser.

I'm all for beta releases, developer's builds, etc., as the team needs as much feedback from as full an SVG authoring community as it can. But as soon as someone starts authoring sites that depend on the weird vagaries of one browser or another's SVG misimplementation, we'll be going down a painfull bug-for-bug compatibility road. Caveat.

Re:include it in the standard build - when it's do (1)

JimDabell (42870) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483440)

I do, however, pray thay SVG isn't included into standard mozilla (or any other browser) until it's reached maturity (which its page indicates it's pretty far from). I spend too much of my time working around the half-assed CSS implementations of older netscape and IE browsers, and I don't want another decade of worrying about which part of the SVG standard was implemented buggily (sp?) by which version of which browser.

Amen. I don't hold out much hope for this though, doesn't Mozilla already include support for CSS 3 selectors, even though that specification hasn't been finished yet? CSS 3 properties, I have no problem with, as they properly hide them with a -moz- prefix, but you just can't do this with selectors, and the Mozilla developers seem to have just ignored this problem.

Re:include it in the standard build - when it's do (2, Informative)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483593)

SVG support in Mozilla has been around for years, literally. The reason it never got into Moz yet is for exactly that reason.

Last I heard, maybe they were going to support the static SVG mini-spec or something. I'd be surprised if they dropped the policy of not including half baked implementations now.

Nice but, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483404)

How about providing GTK2 builds by default so we don't have to muck about recompiling each time. It takes so Loonngg I wana cry! Anyway Apple and KDE are killing Mozillas market share on the Unix desktop so they only have gnome and obsure wm users to compete with, which is like 5% of all linux users.

Re:Nice but, (1)

DarkDust (239124) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483429)

Anyway Apple and KDE are killing Mozillas market share on the Unix desktop

Luckily, this is not the case. One example: my company provided a large german health organisation with Linux desktops with KDE for all employees and we have to use Mozilla as the default browser since Konquerer is really nice (and I love it) but Mozilla is still ahead in terms of "compability" (read: ability to display web pages correctly, even ones that aren't valid HTML).

While the Konqueror/KHTML people do a great job I don't think that they are able to catch up to Mozilla any time soon (not that this would matter, since Mozilla runs on way more platforms than Konqueror).

Re:Nice but, (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483540)

Hmm... I used to use konq all the time [with kmail] and I had no problems with it. In fact I love that the konq is the file browser, shellviewer, etc...

My only beef is the lack of spam filtering. The "this is junk" spam filter built into Moz is simply awesome and I can't live without it.

You're right though, Konq won't replace Moz for the simple fact that Moz doesn't solely run on Linux platforms [getting KDE on Cygwin for win32 is not as easy as people make it out to be :-) ].

Tom

Happy funday sunday! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483426)

Well done slashdot, you have yet again found me something l4m3 to do on a sunday.

1) Wait forever while mozilla source trickles out the slashdotted cvs
2) Wait fourteen hours for it to compile on my AXP2K+-256G/L box.
3) ???
4) No, its not profit, its being raped by the GNAA.

More needless bloat. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483430)

Great. As if the Mozilla install wasn't bloated enough.

And the thing is still horrendously crash prone.

SVG test images and SVG apps (4, Informative)

greenrd (47933) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483435)

After you've downloaded you can test your new SVG-enabled mozilla build by checking out these galleries [sourceforge.net] (see links on left of page). The thumbnails are ordinary bitmap images but they are linked to SVGs.

Bonus: All the images in the above galleries are Open Source, unless otherwise stated! (Quite literally, because SVG files are like "source code" for a vector image.)

As for SVG creating and editing software, apart from the new dSVG software announced earlier today on Slashdot, we have:

  • Apache Batik [apache.org] for all you Java people. This is a fairly mature library (I believe it's based off the CSIRO library), plus sample apps like a viewer, a rasteriser (i.e. convert to gif, jpeg, etc.), a font converter, and a pretty-printer. Quotage: "With Batik, you can manipulate SVG documents anywhere Java is available. You can also use the various Batik modules to generate, manipulate, transcode and search SVG images in your applications or applets." Batik, according to its test suite, supports all of the static SVG specification (i.e. static images) and some of the dynamic specification (i.e. animations and scripting).

    (Get your easy installable RPMs for Batik, and many other Java projects, at jpackage [jpackage.org] - but good luck finding a download link that works! Batik 1.5 hadn't propagated to all the Sourceforge mirrors when I tried it last night - so try all the US mirrors, it will be on at least one of them. Also, because of the numerous dependencies, it's recommended to use a smart package manager that can automatically resolve dependencies, like apt-get or urpmi.)

  • Sodipodi [sourceforge.net] , [screenshots [sourceforge.net] ] a GNOME SVG drawing app, currently at version 0.32. It hosts the open source SVG image gallery linked to above.

  • For more, including KDE/Konq support for SVG, see this Wiki page [protocol7.com]

SVG for data visualization (2, Interesting)

Henry Stern (30869) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483436)

This might be a bit off topic, but I want to use SVG for data visualization and have been having trouble finding suitable software.

The SVG implementations I've found so far either have no external user interface with nice things like scrollbars (Adobe/Corel) or can't handle my very large graphics (everything else I've seen).

I've been very disappointed about this lack of good viewers. SVG is well-suited for data visualization and could become a "killer app" with the right software support.

Adobe SVG plug-in not windows-only (4, Informative)

Oniros (53181) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483441)

Previously one had to use 3rd party plugins such as that from Adobe, and they only worked on windows.

The Adobe plug-in works fine on MacOS 9 and MacOS X.

There are even betas for Red Hat Linux and Solaris 8, though I have no idea how they fare.

Check:
http://www.adobe.com/svg/viewer/install/ main.html

Re:Adobe SVG plug-in not windows-only (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483597)

In fact, the preamble is wrong. The Adobe plugin does not work correctly on Mozilla Windows or Linux. The reason, iirc, is that they used a non-frozen XPCOM based plugin API, which mozilla.org subsequently dropped, rendering their work useless. As you might imagine they were pissed, and didn't do another one.

I think the Mac Mozilla never had this plugin API, so the version of the plugin for that browser simply used the old netscape plugin API, which is severely limited.

It's a shame. A web app I wrote at work requires IE in parts, basically because we use the Adobe SVG plugin but Mozilla doesn't have a plugin API powerful enough to do the tricks IE can do. Maybe some day native SVG will catch up with what the Adobe plugin can do, which would be great.

Question. (2, Interesting)

Rhinobird (151521) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483446)

Ok SVG is trying to be like Flash in scope, but i don't see anything besides animation. I see nothing about syncing with audio or adding interactive elements.

Are these possible and am i missing something from the svg documents? Or is it not there and there going to be a another super set of standards that uses SVG for the graphics and links with audio and has some scripting functions for interactivty?

Re:Question. (1)

Queuetue (156269) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483454)

I believe this is SMIL's job.

Re:Question. (4, Informative)

JimDabell (42870) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483464)

Ok SVG is trying to be like Flash in scope, but i don't see anything besides animation. I see nothing about syncing with audio or adding interactive elements.

I don't know why everybody has latched onto SVG == open Flash. SVG is just vector graphics. SMIL [w3.org] is closer to Flash in terms of functionality.

Re:Question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483505)

You may be thinking of SMIL [w3.org] . SMIL Working Draft is already supported by IE [microsoft.com] it seems.

The testsuite [w3.org] is a good list of what SMIL can support and more details can be found from the full spec [w3.org] .

SVG never worked in windows (2, Informative)

savaget (26702) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483447)

Previously one had to use 3rd party plugins such as that from Adobe, and they only worked on windows.


This is untrue as the plugin crashed in Windows. The release notes have noted this all along. Only a seperate build(branch) of Moz had native SVG support.

Linux Build? (1)

greenrd (47933) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483449)

What happened to the plain Linux build of mozilla with SVG support?

I see a RPM for Redhat 7.1 (gee, up to date), but no straight tar.gz. The link on mozilla.org is broken.

What happened to it?

Flash format is open (4, Interesting)

weinford (97037) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483456)

The SWF Format for flash movies is open, anyone can write programs with SWF output. Unfortunetaly I don't have a link at hand for documentation, but there are several programs with SWF output. I think that SWF has a major advantage over SVG, which is file size. The SVG XML format wastes plenty of bandwidth. Don't misunderstand me, XML and SVG are still very nice things, and I'm more than happy to see the news here, just wanted to point these things out.

Re:Flash format is open (4, Insightful)

JimDabell (42870) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483478)

I think that SWF has a major advantage over SVG, which is file size

A common technique in web development is to serve things in a compressed format. Virtually all browsers support this by transparently decompressing the files after they are recieved. This is part of HTTP (content-encoding).

Binary, already-compressed file formats don't benefit from this, but XML-based formats benefit a great deal. In practice, there won't be much difference in size between SVG and Flash, for the vast majority of people.

Re:Flash format is open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483543)

Another crock of shit.

Native vs. non-native SVG (5, Interesting)

KasparS (321387) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483466)

(1) While I agree with some
posters that there is a danger of distributing unfinishend
implementations, having a NATIVE SVG is a real breakthrough though.
Quote: "Mozilla can handle documents that contain SVG, MathML, XHTML,
SMIL, etc. all mixed together in the same 'compound' document.... ".
Means for instance that you can simply add a little vector graphic INTO
your XHTML code instead of importing png. Also means that the same
DOM/Ecma interface can be used to program dynamic websites, or that you
can dynamically transform XML contents into XHTML/SVG with XSLT
client-side on the fly...

(2) On another note: Adobe's Plug-in version 6.0 BETA is available. And
it does not crash Mozilla 1.4 (Win2k) when embedded in HTML. In order
to install it with Mozilla (tested with Moz 1.4/Win2k) you must copy
the 2 files from:
C:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\SVG Viewer 6.0\Plugins\*
to c:\Program Files\Mozilla.org\Mozilla\Plugins\ Did not see any Unix
version :(

http://www.adobe.com/svg/viewer/install/beta.html [adobe.com]

PS: Plugin v3.0 kills Moz 1.4 (and others if you don't use iframes)

(3) There are some really cool SVG sites. My favorites:

http://www.carto.net/papers/svg/ [carto.net]
(cool examples)

http://www.protocol7.com/svg-wiki/ [protocol7.com]
(documentation about obscuret extensions,
i.e. shows how to get/post to URLS from within SVG ...)
- K

Re:Native vs. non-native SVG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483482)

Means for instance that you can simply add a little vector graphic INTO your XHTML code instead of importing png.

Unfortunately, you can't do this whilst serving your XHTML documents as text/html (which is the only way Internet Explorer will understand them properly).

From now on it's just a question of time... (0, Troll)

Krapangor (533950) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483514)

until Mozilla needs a seperate partition due to code bloat.
Anybody here ever considered to push out a RFC for:
OSML - Operation System Markup Language !
OSML is a markup language which describes entire operating systems. A OSML capable browser can run any existing operationg system just by processing the approriate OSML files.

Well, you could do the same by TMML (Turing Machine Markup Language), but I have some doubt that people would use it.

Open Standards: SVG vs Flash (5, Insightful)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483525)

I just want to point out that Flash is an open format - you can download the specs from Macromedia.

I think SVG is very promising, but Flash already is available for 95% of the computers. It's reasonably fast, extremely compact (both the plugin and the .swf files) and its scripting language is quite powerful.

What I don't understand is why so many /.-ers hate it so much. Just because it's not GNU/Flash?

Re:Open Standards: SVG vs Flash (1)

Winjer2k (515635) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483581)

Yeah, besides, Flash is a standard, it just happens to be a defacto standard.

I'm waiting for someone to start a "Burn all Flashes" website ;)

Re:Open Standards: SVG vs Flash (2, Informative)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483601)

There are no free software authoring environments. Flash is open as long as you have the Flash program, or maybe SWiSH, all of which are proprietary and mostly expensive.

Re:Open Standards: SVG vs Flash (2, Insightful)

JimDabell (42870) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483604)

People hate Flash for many reasons. The one that stands out for me is that it just doesn't work right. I'm used to tabbing through links on a page. I'm used to middle-clicking to open in a new window. I'm used to right-clicking and getting a useful set of options. I'm used to my browser remaining quiet, instead of blaring out music over the top of whatever I am already listening to.

There are a hundred different ways in which it doesn't work right. Flash just doesn't fit well with the web. It's a good format for presentation, or for HSR-style sites, but for everyday interaction with the web, it's terrible. However, many web developers haven't actually realised this, and litter the web with monstrosities that give Flash a bad name.

I think of Flash as being in the same boat as Java applets. In certain circumstances, they can be the best tool for the job. But using them as part of a website's infrastructure, as opposed to merely being something that is on a website, is virtually always a mistake.

learnsvg.com (2, Informative)

Pflipp (130638) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483548)

While on the topic of "SVG/SMIL != Flash" (or is, whatever), see also here [learnsvg.com] . Though it is a book promotion website, there are lots of comprehensive examples on SVG, scripting SVG through Javascript (similar to simple Flash buttons) and combining SVG with SMIL.

That is, the W3C website says the link is also about SMIL. I'm still looking for that link.

Nice! job (2, Interesting)

286 (620933) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483549)

It seem like just yesterday, in all the dSVG posts, people were complaing about just how weak
SVG support was and its back-burner status in Mozilla .

Native support is great, everything else is just a hack.
I for one am so excited to see this news!

Is that based on libart? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483563)

If so, the license issue has been fixed?

SVG? But no JS support? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483586)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a series of graphic routines for javascript be far more useful? I mean you can dynamically create JS like any other content but also JS can directly interact with the user without interacting with the server.

Tom

Can't stand the Mozilla plugin architecture... (2, Interesting)

kcbrown (7426) | more than 11 years ago | (#6483591)

Who decided it would be a good idea to have Mozilla be totally exposed to the whims of a plugin?

A plugin should be sent mouse and keyboard events and be given an API to use to draw things into a "window" defined by the browser, and perhaps an API to retrieve data via an URL, and that's it. Mozilla might get that part right. But the plugin should also run in its own address space, so that if it decides to crash or otherwise do something stupid it won't take the browser with it. Mozilla definitely does not get that right.

Mozilla needs to be stable even in the face of crappy plugins. Right now, it's not, and that's something that badly needs to change.

Things to do today (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6483594)

1. Listen to Nightwish at full-volume
2. Replace company's Linux server with OpenBSD
3. Wash down exceptionally large pizza with 1.5 litre bottle of Lipton Lemon Iced Tea
4. Troll JesusGeeks
5. Rush home for a tommy-tank

As Pa would put it - "PERRFICK!!!!"

SCO si teh 5uxx0rz!!!! bleh.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>