[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> 3) Progressively disclose more detail for each stage of the zoom by
> changing a css stylesheet. I don't know which, if any, implementations
> let you manipulate the css using javascript, though.
Implementations that support CSS will let you manipulate it through the
CSS DOM, but for this case you would just manipulate the viewBox
attribute using core DOM methods.
> You do want to remember that different svg implementations use
> non-compatible ways to specify the use of javascript and css (different
> MIME types).
This is correct in a way, but an overstatement. Mozilla has some
political issues, but it's not a mature implementation of SVG by any
measure anyway so in practice these aren't genuine nuisances (no one
noticed this issue until two weeks ago AFAIK). Mozilla has most of the
groundwork on which to build a great SVG platform, fully integrated into
other Mozilla-supported technologies and if all you need is basic vector
graphics and scripting it'll work mostly well. There are two factors
currently preventing faster development of Mozilla's SVG component:
insufficient communication between implementors and power users or the
WG (which is being worked on) on one side, and on the other a small
group of otherwise intelligent people with a little too much influence
for their own good on a jihad to tell the world that the one and only
Web content is tagsoup-plus-CSS discouraging contribution from helpful
people. Always the optimist, I hope that when they grow tired of burning
witches, planting bombs in crowded places, and their
anything-that's-not-HTML/CSS-is-the-Axis-of-Evil-we-know-what-the-Web-is-and-you-don't
crusade we'll get a chance to work on the few disagreements that lead to
the absurd situation that we have today where people that supposedly
belong to various "Open" credes proceed by exclusion, and those that
publicly claim that "standards stifle innovation" embrace.
EORAMBLE. Short story: don't count Mozilla as an SVG implementation just
yet.
> Overall, I have been happiest with Batik, but the Adobe plugin is
> certainly convenient if you are willing to use IE.
Let's be serious, no one on this list at this date is willing to use IE
unless perhaps for one of those reality shows where you have to do
discusting or scary things ;) I've been a happy user of ASV inside
Safari and Firefox (on Windows, and it works on Linux as well) for quite
a while.
--
Robin Berjon
|
