Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 21:09 23/07/2006, Jeff Rafter wrote:
>>The symptoms are easy to state: An XML developer cannot make a
>>document available to an unknown recipient (human or machine) -
>>the "client" - and assume it has any tools for processing XML.
>>Typical examples are:
>>- I cannot mount an SVG document and assume that the client can
>>view it. (see, for example,
>>http://jodi.tamu.edu/Articles/v05/i01/Murray-Rust/ where the SVG
>>used to work in a majority of browsers and now fails in Firefox).
>Sorry Peter, I know you wanted this thread to stay on topic, but
>there has been a lot of xml-dev talk lately about how Firefox has
>poor support of SVG. That may not be your argument but I wanted to
>point out that the SVGs in that file don't work in Firefox because
>they aren't wellformed. Once you correct the incorrect GE ref to
>&ns_graphs;(and the sodipodi element in the 3rd one), Firefox can
>handle it. Even though Firefox supports SVG 1.1 it attempts to
>display the 1.0 document presented and does so almost 100%
>consistent to Adobe's renderer. Inkscape also supports the document
>primarily because of its status as an editor and the expectation
>that it would be attempting to render incomplete documents.
I apologize if I have appeared to criticize something that currently
works. That was not my intention. My argument was that it *used* to
work (whether or not it was correct) and now doesn't. The maintenance
burden of SVG has been very high for us when it should have been
automatic 5 years ago. (The precise structure of the document was out
of our control and was created from our files by the publisher).
A positive aspect of this is that we should include an SVG validator
in our client-side shopping list!
Unilever Centre for Molecular Sciences Informatics
University of Cambridge,
Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK