Slashdot Mirror
Apple to Adopt KDE4's KDOM and KSVG2?
Anonymous Coward writes "According to Eric Seidel, Apple WebCore developer, Safari may soon have 'experimental SVG support.' He ported KDE's new DOM architecture KDOM as well as their Scaleable Vector Graphics (SVG) implementation KSVG2 and render tree library KCanvas to WebCore. A new section devoted to SVG is also up on the WebCore site. Does this all mean that SVG will now go mainstream, finally?"
Although not the first time, this shows the value of some open source projects. A comercial company now able to take the expertise and 'products' from the open source world and use them for innovation.
2B || !2B
On thefacebook.com, "visualize my friends" creates an svg file that shows all the connections between your friends, and Safari displays it just fine.
Safari doesn't support it natively.
Many technologies first adopted by Apple become standards. Lets hope they can help SVG catch on. By catch on I mean native browser support, not the awful Adobe plugin.
The news is ofcourse great. The quality
of the news item is not. The correct KDOM
link is:
http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/kdenonbeta/kdom/
Also Eric is *not* part of the Safari team,
though he works with them often.
Cheers,
Rob.
Does this all mean that SVG will now go mainstream, finally?
No. Because it's Apple. If it's on Microsoft, then it's mainstream.
And don't you Apple fans flame me. I'm as die-hard an Apple aopologist as the next fanboi (two laptops, four iPods, and two Airports), but the fact remains that with the exception of iPods and iTunes, Apple isn't exactly mainstream. And I like it that way.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
I disagree. As a computer company, Apple may not be very mainstream, but they do make computers and they are quite profittable. Many people also own Macs or have used them before in some capacity, and that's more than can be said for any other operating system except for Windows of course (remember, Macs are *everywhere*; schools, public libraries, professional art galleries I've been in have them).
As a music content delivering company, however, they're the mainstream. iPods outnumber most any other MP3 player (if not all, I may be mistaken), they're all over television, newspaper ads, the sides of buildings.
Once a company has hit the billions mark by sells of a consumer good, they can be considered "mainstream" in my book. Hell, I'm not too sure about your logic but I'd even consider Alienware as mainstream (though, like Apple, they are a niche provider; they provide for the gaming niche of course). It all really depends on how you want to define "mainstream".
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
No. Because it's Apple. If it's on Microsoft, then it's mainstream.
The question wasn't "is SVG now mainstream", but "will SVG go mainstream". Technologies adopted by Apple tend to go mainstream, so it's a valid question, and one you didn't address.
Your response isn't very insightful, either.
SVG already *is* "on Microsoft". And on Apple, too. You just have to install a plug-in (just like Java and Real and other "mainstream" features).
Mainstream doesn't mean "on Microsoft", it just means it's common enough--that it's reached some threshold of popularity. SVG is "on Microsoft" right now, but it's not mainstream. If Mac users get good SVG support in Safari and web sites start to offer SVG content in greater numbers, SVG will be mainstream. Windows users will, as usual, just have to click the "get plugin" button--they're used to it.
Now that Apple is going to include native SVG support with Safari (assuming this comes to pass), the odds of SVG going mainstream really have increased tremendously.
If you have the Adobe SVG plugin it does. But not by itself. Try ctrl-clicking on the SVG graphic and select "About SVG viewer", voilá!
Apple adding native support would mean that there would be a userbase with SVG support by default, as with good PNG transparency support and CSS text shadows where Apple has paved the way.
Seems like these days you just can't ask people to download appropriate plugins anymore. Oh how I miss the roarin' nineties...
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
I disagree--I think the GP got it right. If MS doesn't support it natively, it is not mainstream. Period. It may suck hard, but that doesn't mean it isn't fact. It has nothing to do with critical mass either; it has to do with penetration of implementations. Even if Safari, Firefox and every KDE browser in existence got it native and assuming that everyone who could upgrade did upgrade--it would still represent a marginal user base compared to the countless IE browsers in-use and without the plugin. Rembmber too that MS developed a differing system to SVG.
That said, there is some reason to think that SVG has a chance of going mainstream, but I don't see any reason to think that this will be the touchpoint that spurs the change.
So... you start out by saying you disagree with me, and then go to great lengths to prove my point? I don't understand.
I disagree. As a computer company, Apple may not be very mainstream
So, you disagree, and then state the same thing that I said -- Apple is not mainstream. Make up your mind.
As a music content delivering company, however, they're the mainstream.
Exactly the point that I made. Did you miss it when I wrote, "with the exception of iPods and iTunes?"
Once a company has hit the billions mark by sells of a consumer good, they can be considered "mainstream" in my book.
A reasonable proposition. But since Apple is still such a very very minority player in the consumer goods arena I contend that they're not "mainstream." But I can see your point.
I'd even consider Alienware as mainstream (though, like Apple, they are a niche provider
If they're a niche provider, then they're not mainstream, they're niche.
It all really depends on how you want to define "mainstream".
I think we can agree on this point.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
You make a good point, and I'm not as familiar with SVG as you. Maybe I should refine my point to be, "if it's not built in to the browser with the largest marketshare (Internet Explorer), it's not mainstream."
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
"A comercial company now able to take the expertise and 'products' from the open source world and use them for innovation."
I dub thee, BSD.
I disagree--I think the GP got it right. If MS doesn't support it natively, it is not mainstream. Period. It may suck hard, but that doesn't mean it isn't fact.
And just because it "may suck hard" doesn't make it fact, either.
MS doesn't support Java, Real, QuickTime, zip (maybe they do finally in XP?), flash, blah, blah, blah, either. But they are all "mainstream".
Your definition of "mainstream" is flawed. It's that it has to be natively supported by MS. That's clearly and obviously false. Just *one* example proves you wrong.
Being supported natively by MS makes being mainstream easier, but it's *not* the definition of mainstream.
The iPod is clearly mainstream, and it's more than obvious that the iPod is not natively supported by MS.
You make a good point, and I'm not as familiar with SVG as you. Maybe I should refine my point to be, "if it's not built in to the browser with the largest marketshare (Internet Explorer), it's not mainstream."
That still fails to stand up to scrutiny. Java, Real, QuickTime, flash, etc, are all "mainstream" and none are built into MSIE.
Ad blocking, anti-spyware, anti-virus, are all mainstream and were before MS got (or announced getting) into those realms.
Mainstream just means it's legitimately in the common public vernacular or usage. Firefox is currently "mainstream", even though it's not the most common browser. The iPod is mainstream, even though it's not natively supported by MS.
Conversely, being supported by MS doesn't automatically make something "mainstream" either. It needs to be commonly (and to some extent, knowingly) used.
You don't seem to appreciate the fact that SVG is a web standard and for acceptance it requires native adoption in a web browser. That means IE. Period.
Your example also proves the point: iPod is mainstream just because it is BY FAR the dominant player in the industry. Just as IE is in the browser world. You recognize that as true, yes?
BTW, I never said that any technology not natively implemented by MS is not mainstream -- nice try at putting words in my mouth. I was talking about the specific case of SVG and I really do believe that your view is not as realistic as it might be. Of course, time will tell and a good part of me hopes that YOU are right!
I bet the KDE people are big KMFDM fans. They seem to use the same naming schema after all.
Philosophy.
Java, Real, QuickTime, flash, etc, are all "mainstream" and none are built into MSIE.
MS did their own Java. It was bundled since IE4, got kicked with WinXP, was bundled again with WinXP-SP1 and was kicked out again with WinXP-SP1a.
MS once licensed the RealPlayer. IIRC it was during Win95 or Win98.
MS licensed QT (the file format). WMP can still play old (pre-Sorenson codec) QT movies.
MS have licensed Flash. It's bundled with every Windows release since Win98 or something.
Not all of these products are still bundled with Windows/IE, but they were in the past. It surely helped their adoption.
If MS doesn't support it natively, it is not mainstream.
So I wonder when PDF is going mainstream.
Now that Adobe has bought out Macromedia (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/13552 33&tid=98), I'd be surprised to see them helping push SVG any more.
As much as I'd love to be proven wrong, I think SVG headed for historical footnote status in the very near future.
Think harder homer. When PDF hit the world, there was no CSS, no HTML, nothing in fact, except for proprietary page layout software and word processors. It filled a gap that others still have a hard time filling because it did it so well. On the other hand, one has to wonder if it would have the same impact if it was released today rather than back when. Indeed, who can offer an alternative to PDF at this point? Microsoft is about to try -- and considering their weight, they actually have a chance. Otherwise, the PDF argument is rather specious. As is the Java argument (how many websites deploy content/behaviours with Java?) and so many others that are being offered.
Lets compare like-to-like. TFA is talking about SVG becoming mainstream in relation to it being included in a browser. As we already know, there are plugins for SVG for almost every browser on every platform yet it is decidedly not mainstream yet. What is the major difference between Flash and PDF and SVG? Flash and PDF were earlier to market and are also proprietary (read single vendor) solutions.
So enough with the non-sequitors -- SVG needs IE adoption for success as does every web standard. To say otherwise is to support a rather uncommon view of the word "mainstream".
You don't seem to appreciate the fact that SVG is a web standard and for acceptance it requires native adoption in a web browser. That means IE. Period.
You're wrong. Period. SVG can become mainstream without native support in IE. Period. You seem to think that if you say "period" after something, it's true. Period.
Your point is overly simplistic, and demonstrably wrong. Something does not have to be natively supported in IE to be mainstream. Java and Real are mainstream. Period.
OK, so maybe you mean only SVG needs to be supported natively by IE, but Java and Real don't. You haven't provided any arguments to back that up. Period.
Not all of these products are still bundled with Windows/IE, but they were in the past. It surely helped their adoption.
Doesn't matter. Your claim was, "if it's not built in to the browser with the largest marketshare (Internet Explorer), it's not mainstream." Not that "being supported by MS helps make something mainstream". That's obvious. Just like being supported by Apple helps make something mainstream. Being supported by Apple is not critical, neither is being supported by MS.
Some of your general points are accurate, but you're trying to apply them one step beyond their validity. A technology does not need to be supported directly and natively by MS to become mainstream. There are just far too many examples to the contrary.
its great to see support for SVG finally taking shape, Firefox 1.1, Opera, and possibly Konq and Safari. Now if only microsoft would support it...
http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/
You're being foolish--the question at hand is whether something must be supported natively by MS to become a standard.
This is clearly and obviously not true.
If SVG is different, and that it *does* need such support, it's up to you to explain why.
Think harder homer. When PDF hit the world, there was no CSS, no HTML, nothing in fact, except for proprietary page layout software and word processors.
You are absolutely wrong, and clearly have a limited understanding of the subject. You're thinking of PostScript.
As we already know, there are plugins for SVG for almost every browser on every platform yet it is decidedly not mainstream yet.
But something has changed--Apple is going to support SVG. If this comes to pass, there will be more SVG content on the web. It's possible (but not certain) that the sites that add SVG content will be enough to get Windows users to click the "get plugin" button. Also, I believe, Firefox has, or will have, native support for SVG built-in as well.
SVG needs IE adoption for success as does every web standard.
Like PDF, Real, QuickTime, Java, etc?
To say otherwise is to support a rather uncommon view of the word "mainstream".
You're the one with the flawed definition. Mainstream means it's in the common public realm. Firefox *is* mainstream, for example. Mainstream does not mean everyone uses it, or even that a majority of the populace uses it. Rap, for example, is mainstream, but that doesn't mean everyone listens to it. DVD's and CD's were mainstream long before the majority of content was sold in those formats.
In the end, you might be right that Apple adopting SVG won't be enough to take SVG mainstream, but there are just far too many examples of web technologies that have become mainstream without direct support in IE to take your argument seriously.
Your claim was, "if it's not built in to the browser with the largest marketshare (Internet Explorer), it's not mainstream."
That wasn't his claim. It was mine. You're flaming the wrong target.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
That wasn't his claim. It was mine. You're flaming the wrong target.
:-)
Oops, thought I double-checked who I was replying too.
I don't think it was a flame, though, but yeah, wrong target.
Dude, you aren't worth arguing with because you think you are right regardless of how little supports your view.
Cheers.
Sure! And then we might all finally learn what SVG stands for.
... I tought that the K in KSVG2 was from KDE, and KDE comes with Linux, BSD and many other Unices (http://www.kde.org/download/distributions.php).
Then I thought that the Adobe SVG Viewer is available for Windows platforms for a couple of years now - and while you consider it awful, it is the most compliant SVG viewer I have ever tried.
Then there is Firefox 1.1 and the beautiful (because of JavaScript) support for SVG in Dear Park Alpha.
So no, SVG was probably not "first addopted" by Apple, but yes the addoption of SVG by Apple will certainly help SVG go mainstream. However, not as much as Adobe did, nor as Firefox will.
If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
im not the 'dude' you are arguing with, but i have been reading the argument, and i must say you are a fucktard.
Dude, you aren't worth arguing with because you think you are right regardless of how little supports your view.
Since one can't really speak slowly on the web in a non-annoying way, I'll instead suggest you read this slowly.
*Your* view is that web standards (in this case, SVG) require native, built-in support in IE to become mainstream. *My* view is that your view is wrong.
It only takes one example to show your view wrong, but I can think of many. PDF, Java, Real and QuickTime come to mind immediately.
This is unassailable. You are wrong.
Perhaps SVG will require IE support for some reason. But just saying, "for some reason" is not enough, just like saying, "Period." is not enough. You actually need to think of a logical, and compelling reason. You have provided none.
Does this all mean that SVG will now go mainstream, finally?
No, it clearly says "Apple" in the article, not "Microsoft".
My other comment is funny
There are lots of other places to use SVG besides on the Web.
I count 15 SVG-capable Cell Phones at my local cell-mart, actually.
It seems to me, if Desktop computers don't implement SVG, they're going to be eaten alive by the Cell Phone Giant.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Hey, what's wrong with asking? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Native support for SVG in two popular browsers (Firefox and Safari) would be great. Hopefully the two (three?) development camps - Mozilla, WebCore/KDE - will be able to keep their DOMS, JavaScript interactions, and other related SVG things compatible.
- Jasen.
Okay, I don't want to argue with you but you it would be less likely if you would stick to the topic instaead of pointing out completely unrelated (and at least in the case of Java and Real arguably not even mainstream) technologies. You still haven't explained while SVG will succeed now that it is being adopted to Apple. I gave reasons why I think it won't. Your claim that "it only takes one other technology to show that I am wrong" is completely unfounded -- these are absolutely unrelated to SVG adoption and you are merely using red herrings instead of argument and logic. Prove the SVG case because if two items are unrelated and one is true, it does not make the other true as well. So you pointing to other technologies doesn't support your claim in the least.
So I ask: what makes this Apple event so special in regards to SVG and it becoming mainstream when, as you yourself noted, SVG is already supported everywhere at least via plugins and yet is decidedly not mainstream? Don't answer unless you have a compelling argument, which to-date you have not even come close to providing.
I on-the-other hand did provide reasons for my view. You refuse to accept them because they don't meet your expectations. Pity. But you are wrong. Period.
Eric Seidel is not an Apple WebCore engineer. From TFM:
Disclaimer: Let me emphasize that at this time there is NO SVG
support in Safari itself, nor has Apple (or myself) made any
commitment to ship SVG support in Safari, now or in the future.
However, with your help (the open source community) I would very much
like to see full SVG integration in WebKit in the future.
This means that there is experimental support in WebCore, and experimental support may be in WebKit in the future, should you want to roll your own. I wouldn't expect Apple to ship anything "experimental" in Safari, though.
Qualification: When somebody says, "Technologies adopted by Apple tend to become standards," they have, in my experience, been talking about hardware (802.11b/g, firewire). When Apple starts sticking built-in airport cards and firewire 400/800 ports in every single new product, developers notice and start making cameras and wireless routers. There's your tipping point.
However, granted that downloading a plugin isn't as hard or expensive as buying a PCI daughter card, it does make people think differently. For instance, a website designer generally wants his site to render on an 800x600 window, but probably works at 1280x1024 or above, along with many of his clients. Thanks to some good programming, he's also capable of serving different pages depending on which browser makes the request. Then, for kicks and to grapple the new technology, he builds an SVG version of his site and automatically serves it to every Safari browser of the appropriate version.
Seeing that this is catching on, Microsoft, ever the follower, decides to bundle it into IE. Apple takes risks, then MS follows.
Troll
Okay, I don't want to argue with you but you it would be less likely if you would stick to the topic
... argument and logic.
The topic is, "Does SVG require native and built-in support from IE in order to become mainstream?", in the context of "Apple to officially support SVG".
instaead of pointing out completely unrelated (and at least in the case of Java and Real arguably not even mainstream) technologies.
FULL STOP! Java and Real *are* mainstream.
You still haven't explained while SVG will succeed now that it is being adopted to Apple.
You're an idiot. I have not claimed it *will* succeed. NEVER. Moron. Learn to read.
*You're* the one making the claim, and I'm saying your claim is *wrong*. Your claim is that a technology (in this case, SVG), requires IE support. You are wrong.
Your claim that "it only takes one other technology to show that I am wrong" is completely unfounded
I'm done with you. You are an absolute fool.
When you claim something absolute (remember all your, "if it ain't in IE, it ain't mainstream. Period." tripe?), it only takes *one* counter-example to prove your claim, as it stands, is wrong.
That's, actually, both argument and logic.
I on-the-other hand did provide reasons for my view.
No, you haven't. Your "reasons" consisted of saying, "Period.", over and over.
You refuse to accept them because they don't meet your expectations.
Yeah, I expected you to concede your ideas to the laws of reason, and the facts of history.
I'm not claiming SVG will now become mainstream. I've only stated that:
A. It's far more likely now.
B. Native IE support is not required.
And I've just added:
C. You're an idiot.
I've confidently stated, restated, and supported A and B, and any further discussion with you will only serve to strengthen the case for C, which really doesn't do much for me.
And remember, next time a site offers a PDF download, or CNN or the BBC provides a link to a Real video, just say to yourself, "That's not mainstream. Period." You need to keep repeating falsehoods to yourself in order to cancel out the contrary evidence reality constantly throws at you, lest the fear of self-doubt make you feel uncomfortable.
Better yet, accept reality, and cast off false notions. We all find ourselves believing a false thing is true. It's far superior to accept reality and move on. You only lose once by admitting a mistake, and it's the kind of loss no one will hold against you, but you keep losing if you try to maintain a notion contrary to reality.
Some of the assumptions in your arguments are true, but you're applying them a step or two beyond their validity (along with a few mistakes on facts, like when PDF's were introduced, or what "mainstream" means). It's like you're claiming that in order for something to fly, it must have wings, and the wings must flap. Some of the underlying ideas are correct, but the conclusion is false, and demonstrably so. Saying, "Period." or pretending "flying" means something other than it does, does not make you right. Jets and helicopters exist. Back up in your logic a step or two and reformulate your theory along the lines of: in order for something to fly, it requires a propulsion system. Flapping wings are one, jets, propellors, and rockets are some of the others.
In order for a web standard to become mainstream, it needs an impetus for adoption. Native support in IE makes adoption easier, but is not required, as proven by PDF, Java, Real, QuickTime, Flash (flash was mainstream before the plug-in was bundled), etc.
I can only show you the fact, it's up to you to think.
God are dumb. I'd hit you with the clue stick but that would mean the destruction of entire clue forest. Good luck with that.
SVG is all fine and good, but as others mention there is a commonly installed plugin for it. What I'd like to see is built in MathML support. Yeah it is for a smaller niche. But it would be very nice.
Mainstream != dominate.
Is Chrylser ad main stream car company even if Ford is bigger?
Mainstream just means common. Yes the iPod is mainstream as are many other MP3 players.
Firefox is now a mainstream browser.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Mainly true, but I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream where 'mainstream' is described as the antithesis of 'individuality'. Under that definition, we can discern 'alternative' from 'mainstream' and I would suggest that Firefox remains an alternative browser while iPod is certainly a mainstream MP3 player. 'mainstream' is a rather soft term and I'm afraid it greatly hurt this discussion. Never-the-less, when applied to a technology as opposed to an item from popular culture one needs discern in-use pervasiveness from other features. What can 'mainstream' possibly mean for a technology other than that it is widely deployed and transparently accessible?
Certainly SVG is not yet in the mainstream and this is what the original poster asked: would Apple's adoption lead it to the mainstream. That remains perposterous. It will take more than that and in my opionion, that means native adoption on IE.
Another poster here has tried to show that technologies can go mainstream without being adopted by IE. Of course, it doesn't take much intelligence to figure that out; unfortunately, none of his counter-examples to my claim were things first adopted by Apple (excepting QuickTime) and none were of the type that SVG is (an open WEB standard). In other words, he was completely off-topic and argumentative without considering the original supposition in the least. Apple has adopted several webstandards that Microsoft (and IE) have not -- so I ask: does the web conform to the standards or to IE? Up-to-now, the answer has decidedly been "IE".
If anything is going to really push SVG, it is Adobe buying Macromedia, although it being adopted in to the XML RSS world in a face of crap Flash interfaces doesn;t hurt.
I just spent all my mod points modding you down and node up, which is why I'm posting anonymously.
You should really take a step back and reread the whole thread from the beginning. It's amusing how silly you look.
node3 this is so obviously you posting as an AC. When you grow up, hopefully you will understand why you are completely wrong. Instead of following the debate you got stuck up on the fact that I said "period", which is very amusing. You are wrong not because I said you are wrong but rather because your argument is based on unrelated points to the debate and moreso, come from an obviously biased point of view. It is not my job to show you how and where you went wrong. The fact that you modded me down in a discussion that you were participating in shows exactly how weak your argument is. The fact that you resorted to name calling--quite early I might add and without provocation or any logical reason--shows very poorly on you. The fact that you could never answer my claims directly but rather only used non-related arguments to "prove" your point shows that you aren't up to the challenge. That you finally come back as an anonymous coward says it all. Guy, its not worth it. Who cares one way or another? Why are you acting like such a jerk--just because you can't stand being wrong? Good luck with that. You certainly need it.
Shit, you are such a fucking moron.
Perhaps you have heard of people using multiple accounts or getting their bum buddies to help them troll? God you are guillable and ignorant. Besides, the fact remains, node3 is an idiot who doesn't understand the internet, doesn't understand web standards and how they have played out in the "mainstream", doesn't have even the slightest grasp of the historical facts regarding the technologies and companies that are under discussion and has fairly much no concept of logic and debate. His argumet boils down to, "you are wrong because foobar exists" when foobar was neither first adopted by Apple, is not relevant to a discussion of a technology being adopted in a web platform, is itself not a web standard (and so is subject to different rules) and in every case had a major vendor behind it proposing it as a proprietary technology tied to their product lines. In every case completely unlike the discussion at hand. A larger fool and mean spirited asswipe I have not seen in quite awhile.
Yeah, you're right. Your excellent argument has in fact convinced me that I really am node3.