Mozilla Gets (Beta) Native SVG support

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."

Comments

Re:Bandwith eating useless animations

[m00nun1t]

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.

At last!

[darnok]

*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:Bandwith eating useless animations

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yet another mozilla advantage over IE

[Capt'n Hector]

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

Re:Yet another mozilla advantage over IE

[DarkDust]

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

[JimDabell]

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

[MikeFM]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[eyeye]

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:Firebird

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

include it in the standard build - when it's done

[wfmcwalter]

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:Firebird

[MikeFM]

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:Flash format is open

[JimDabell]

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:Firebird

[jacksonyee]

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 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...

Open Standards: SVG vs Flash

[gaspyy]

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?

Luddite?

[n0nsensical]

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:Open Standards: SVG vs Flash

[JimDabell]

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

[Tet]

What I don't understand is why so many /.-ers hate it so much

There are numerous problems 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

[sehryan]

So blame the developer, don't blame the tool.

Re:Open Standards: SVG vs Flash

[smallpaul]

First, being able to download the specs does not make the format "open". An open format is defined in an open, relatively transparent process with input from multiple players including vendors and end-users. As long as Macromedia maintains sole control over the direction of the specification, it is not open. You can also download specs for the Word .DOC format. Second, you cannot download the specs without agreeing to a license agreement. The license agreement is specifically designed to allow you to create SWF files but not to create a viewer. Macromedia has not sued anyone who created a viewer but that's because nobody has done a good enough job to compete with them seriously. Imagine if an open source product competed so well that more people wanted the open source version than the Macromedia version. First, they could sue. Then, they could change the format to make the open source version obsolete. That's why Flash is not an open format. If Macromedia wants it to be open it should remove the licensing agreement and say that the specification is in the public domain for anybody to do anything with it.