XML in Mozilla 1.0Monday July 1st, 2002Web developer site WebReference.com has a feature about XML in Mozilla 1.0. The column looks at Mozilla's rich XML support and also examines the internal use of XML within the program. Strange that this was not covered in Mozillaquest. I mean, how could they missed this when they say: "MozillaQuest Magazine has the best, most balanced, accurate, robust and in-depth coverage of AOL-Netscape's Mozilla 1.0 browser on the Internet." ;-) Mozilla 1.0 fails to properly allow access to loaded XML documents on the Macintosh. This bug is earmarked for resolution shortly, http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138295. This is a paste from the article. "Support for SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) and its SVG DOM SVG also became a first-class content type in Mozilla with its own implementation. Unfortunately there is now a second popular implementation from Adobe in the form of a plug-in for all browsers and platforms, and rumours of incompatibilities hamper the progress of SVG. Hopefully Adobe and Mozilla can work this out." This simply not true, there is a SVG enabled zip in the release folder if one knows how to find it. That the progress of SVG is hampered is missleading to say the least. It is growing and developing fine. SVG 1.2 is moving on to a recommendation at high speed. It's not true, but not for the reason you suggest. Mozilla's SVG support is woefully inadequate and doesn't come even close to meeting the standard, whereas Adobe's plugin is fairly full-featured. There isn't 'incompatibility' between the two products: one (Adobe's) works, one (Mozilla's) doesn't. This isn't a diss to Mozilla's SVG support - the reason Mozilla's SVG support sucks is that it isn't finished yet, and work is continuing. I am sure that when Mozilla's SVG implementation is as complete as Mozilla's CSS1 implementation, it'll be included in standard builds. As for the 'progress being hampered', they certainly don't mean the progress of new recommendations... I think they mean the progress of the format becoming a widely used Web graphics standard. Which is currently hampered not by incompatibilities between implementations, but because Adobe's is the only game in town and it's not a very widely installed plugin. SVG will only really have a benefit over Flash etc. when it has integrated browser support in IE (and Mozilla of course - with luck, when Mozilla gains full SVG support, it'll be enough to shame Microsoft into developing it, presuming they're not already doing so). SVG isn't making very much progress on the Web, where it is barely used at all (no surprise, as these things take time: not many people were using PNG in 1997 either, which is about the comparable date). It is, reportedly, making progress in other areas such as mobile phones. On the Web, it's still nowhere. --sam #5 isn't there a bug with the Adobe plugin in Mozillaby thegoldenear Friday July 5th, 2002 10:20 AM I'd heard somewhere (but haven't looked) that the Adobe SVG plugin was buggy when used with Mozilla Hi "Mozilla's SVG support is woefully inadequate and doesn't come even close to meeting the standard, whereas Adobe's plugin is fairly full-featured. There isn't 'incompatibility' between the two products: one (Adobe's) works, one (Mozilla's) doesn't." This is one of those yes, and no things. 'Woefully' is a little strong in that if one takes the time to follow this (http://www.croczilla.com/svg/index2.html#faq) to Alex Fritze's FAQ on what is supported (and this is an old list) one might be surprised. What is lacking is mainly only a couple of things i.e. SVG text (and this is coming soon), SMIL animation (a really tough nut), however over the DOM some 'animation' can be done now with JS. "As for the 'progress being hampered', they certainly don't mean the progress of new recommendations... I think they mean the progress of the format becoming a widely used Web graphics standard. Which is currently hampered not by incompatibilities between implementations, but because Adobe's is the only game in town and it's not a very widely installed plugin." Adobe says around 120 million are installed( based on updates of Acrobat to number 5, it is included i.e. backdoor install, one is not asked) plus sales of new Adobe products i.e. graphic and web authors (also back door) As wide spread as flash-- of course not. SVG will only really have a benefit over Flash etc. when it has integrated browser support in IE (and Mozilla of course - with luck, when Mozilla gains full SVG support, it'll be enough to shame Microsoft into developing it, presuming they're not already doing so). "SVG isn't making very much progress on the Web, where it is barely used at all (no surprise, as these things take time: not many people were using PNG in 1997 either, which is about the comparable date). It is, reportedly, making progress in other areas such as mobile phones. On the Web, it's still nowhere." This again is yes and no, for Mozilla (plugin conflict) there isn't much on the web, for IE (I don't use it ;-) ) there is more than one thinks, go to ( This is a mailing list and web forum for anyone who is interested in developing content in the new SVG format from the W3C. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/?yguid=70956769) a yahoo and follow some of the links or do a general search at google for SVG(http://www.google.com/search?q=svg&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) SVG Mobile is going to be big, SVG is the ideal 'graphic' for small screens. Any way enough rambling from me, my point was simply that in the article it emplied that SVG was present in all builds, as MathML is, and just wanted to set the record straight, or perhaps I didn't understand "SVG also became a first-class content type in Mozilla with its own implementation." which is from (http://www.webreference.com/xml/column58/index.html) --sam |