Mozilla Gets (Beta) Native SVG support 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."
Re:Bandwith eating useless animations (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
At last! (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Bandwith eating useless animations (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Firebird (Score:2, Insightful)
So if it's by default in mozille (firebird), it might finally push SVG
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.
include it in the standard build - when it's done (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Because:
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:Firebird (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Flash format is open (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (Score:1, Insightful)
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:Firebird (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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...
Open Standards: SVG vs Flash (Score:5, Insightful)
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
What I don't understand is why so many
Luddite? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Open Standards: SVG vs Flash (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Open Standards: SVG vs Flash (Score:4, Insightful)
There are numerous problems [slashdot.org] with Flash, and SVG has the potential to solve all of them. Many people hate Flash so much because of the countless sites that have been rendered unreadable and unusable by gratuitous use of Flash.
Re:Open Standards: SVG vs Flash (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open Standards: SVG vs Flash (Score:3, Insightful)