why a different tag for SVG images?

[phil-news-nospam]

Why does SVG need a different tag than other images?

IMHO, SVG should be implemented as an image type just like any other image
type, allowing it to work with <img> tags, and ... here is the important
part ... also work with backgrounds in other tags.

I fail to see any wisdom in making SVG different than say PNG (of course
the implementation of the rendering code would obvious be different).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[phil-news-nospam]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:19:47 -0400 Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:

| ph**************@ipal.net wrote:
|> The tag issue was here because I saw it as a tag issue specifically.
|> Since I see SVG as usable where PNG is usable,
|
| A different point on using SVG for a simple graphic: SVG *can* include
| much more than a simple vector graphic representation. It has a whole
| object model with a manipulable interface. Therefore, the engine needed
| to process SVG is bulkier than the engines needed to display GIFs and
| JPEGs and PNGs--more memory, and slower to load. So it would generally
| be wise to reserve SVGs for uses where its capabilities beyond display
| of static images (resizability, interactivity) are required.

It can still be used for static images, though a bit heavy for it.

I've gone ahead and begun a little project to define yet another format
for constructing images that are vector oriented and scalable. This one
is less ambitious than SVG. It is also simpler as a result. I expect
the file size for images it is intended to work with will be much smaller
than those of SVG, and may be smaller than PNG depending on the size it
is actually scaled to. It won't be an extension of XML. It won't have
a DOM interface (at least not by design, though I can see how someone
could hack something up in an implementation). Now I just need a name
for it. I don't think Simple Visual Generator would work :-)
| Also--you do realize that most people don't have an SVG plug-in
| installed, don't you?

Yes. That may change. But if no one uses SVG, waiting for the plug-in
first, then no one will plug anything in. Chicken or egg?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[phil-news-nospam]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:12:23 -0400 Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
| VK wrote:
|> Harlan Messinger wrote:
|>> do realize that most people don't have an SVG plug-in
|>> installed, don't you?
|>
|> Firefox 1.5 or higher and Opera 7.0 or higher have SVG support by
|> default (natively).
|> IE 5.5 or higher have VML support by default (natively).
|
| This is entirely consistent with what I said.
|
|> 90% or more of current UA's have native scriptable vector graphics support.
|
| VML support doesn't do any good for someone who wants to post SVG.
|
|> Adobe SVG plugin - it is from the pre-historic times.
|
| Most people wouldn't see why they should have to install new software to
| see a simple image, or they would be pissed if they installed it and
| then found they'd gone through the whole process just for the sake of
| seeing something that could perfectly well have been a GIF.

That's what they said about PNG.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[phil-news-nospam]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:10:58 +0300 "W?rm" <no*************@north.invalid> wrote:
|
|><ph**************@ipal.net> kirjoitti
|>viestiss?:e1********@news1.newsguy.com...
|
| <snip>
|
|> Of course, if you want to provide a counter example of perfectly validated
|> HTML, with corresponding CSS, that renders the same effect, go right
|> ahead.
|> You probably won't want to as it did take me a few hours to accomplish
|> that
|> and codify it in PHP in a modular way.
|
| What ever anyone is paying you, it's too much if it took that long...
|
|
|>I suspect it would take at least
|> twice as long to code it to web standards compliance as the standards are
|> today.
|
| Not really that much at all... Couple of sleepy minutes
|
| Quick test for stupid silly dropshadow. Shouldn't take rocket scientist and
| HOURS to go on from that really.
|
| http://www.kolumbus.fi/ace/ng/drop-shadow.html
|
| If you look code that ain't really complex at all. Most part were link
| snippet from your page put in list.

You're making (at least) TWO wrong assumptions. One is that CSS was usable
when this was done. It was not. It had to be done entirely in tables and
still work on all the browsers of the day.

So as mental challenge exercise, go try it in HTML 3.2 sans-CSS tables,
and make it work on NS3, NS4, IE3, and IE4 without any difference in
what is sent to any browser.

Secondly, it was part of a PHP and C layer API at the server side so that
chunks of content could get the effect without having to code it each time.
Part of the design was making sure it was a usable API.
| <NOTICE>
| Code ain't that much tested because I haven't got awaken properly yet so
| there might be simpler and better way to do this..
| </NOTICE>

Might be. But if there is a MUCH simpler way to do it in the future under
all NEW standards, then be prepared to be raked over the coals for having
done it THIS way TODAY.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[phil-news-nospam]

On 13 Apr 2006 02:15:11 -0700 VK <sc**********@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| ph**************@ipal.net wrote:
|> On 12 Apr 2006 13:44:03 -0700 VK <sc**********@yahoo.com> wrote:
|> |
|> | ph**************@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> Pass the octet stream received from the HTTP server to the code
|> |> that is an implementation for it, and get back a pixel array that can be
|> |> given to the GUI subsystem to display on the current page. This can be
|> |> with GIF, JPEG, PNG, etc ... so why not SVG.
|> |
|> | Because SVG has nothing to do with the above described mechanics.
|>
|> On what basis do you say this?
|> I know for certain that SVG can be viewed as an image.
|
| Publisher and Writer:
|
| W: I brought you my new book!
| P: About what is it?
| W: She loves him but...
| P: I'm very short in time today, so very briefly please.
| W: It is a very sad story about love.
| P: I cannot take it - Shakespeare already wrote this.
|
| Phil and Web Standards:
|
| W: We've got all new technologie to extend graphics context.
| P: Is it still image?
| W: Not at all, it is...
| P: Briefly - can it be used as a still image?
| W: Well, yes, but...
| P: So it is new still image format. Add it to <img> and do not bother
| me.
|
| By your lexicon in this thread there are few obvious conclusion to
| make:
| 1) As you continuously referring to <object> and <embed>, you never had
| a deal with real SVG xml+svg standard. You only sew some primitive
| static samples with proprietary (besides being hugely ancient) Adobe
| SVG viewer.

Are you presuming I'm using that?

I guess it doesn't matter much. I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.1 (and will
be switching to 1.5.0.2 soon.
| 2) By your continuous references to some misterious "octet stream" it
| is obvious that even in these samples you did not bother to check the
| source file nor its MIME. You just wrongly presumed that it is some
| precompiled data a la .swf
|
| And with this more than narrow knowledge packadge you dared to deploy a
| long discussion about Semantics and Standards ?!

You don't know what an octet stream is?

I never presumed it is precompiled.
| P.S. I do not count to improve your mind, but I thought necessary to
| add this info here. SVG discussions are still not too numerous in
| newsgroups. In case if someone will come to this thread by "SVG"
| search, I don't want them to leave with a completely twisted
| dellusioned idea of that SVG is.

SVG can be used in many ways. One of them is by supplying the octet
stream to a "black box" which is an implementation of a SVG translator
and the output can be a raw set of image pixels. This by no means says
that this is how it must be done. I'm saying it _can_ be done that way.

What I would like to see you agree to is that the standards that define
the format/syntax/semantics of SVG, as well as the standards that make
use of it (e.g. HTML, etc), should not impose any narrowing ideas on
how it can be used without a specific cause and explanation about how
such a use would cause problems. In other words, you can use it your
want and I can use it might way.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Wÿrm]

<ph**************@ipal.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:e1*******@news1.newsguy.com...

<snip>

| http://www.kolumbus.fi/ace/ng/drop-shadow.html
|
| If you look code that ain't really complex at all. Most part were link
| snippet from your page put in list.

You're making (at least) TWO wrong assumptions. One is that CSS was
usable
when this was done. It was not. It had to be done entirely in tables and
still work on all the browsers of the day.

I am not making assumption, but you are trying to backpedal. It's easy to
tell "boohoo I meant use this'n'that not what you have used".

That code does what you asked, should be simple enough even for you, and
should work down to IE 4 (and it was released 1997, almost a decade ago),
now cry me a river while you're busy whining and making excuses...
<all rest soppy excuses snipped>

[Wÿrm]

<ph**************@ipal.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:e1*******@news1.newsguy.com...

<snip>

One is that CSS was usable when this was done. It was not. It had to be
done entirely in tables and
still work on all the browsers of the day.

And just for the record, your domain http://linuxhomepage.com/ was
registered 1999 november, so much for that claim...

[phil-news-nospam]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 01:10:24 +0300 "W?rm" <no*************@north.invalid> wrote:

| <ph**************@ipal.net> kirjoitti
| viestiss?:e1*******@news1.newsguy.com...
|
| <snip>
|
|> | http://www.kolumbus.fi/ace/ng/drop-shadow.html
|> |
|> | If you look code that ain't really complex at all. Most part were link
|> | snippet from your page put in list.
|>
|> You're making (at least) TWO wrong assumptions. One is that CSS was
|> usable
|> when this was done. It was not. It had to be done entirely in tables and
|> still work on all the browsers of the day.
|
| I am not making assumption, but you are trying to backpedal. It's easy to
| tell "boohoo I meant use this'n'that not what you have used".
|
| That code does what you asked, should be simple enough even for you, and
| should work down to IE 4 (and it was released 1997, almost a decade ago),
| now cry me a river while you're busy whining and making excuses...

Again, it doesn't work in all browsers of that day. See how you pick
just one browser and ASSUME it must work in all the rest.

<CLUE target="/dev/brain">NS3 had no functional CSS.</CLUE>

<CLUE target="/dev/brain">NS4 had CSS that usually did not work right and
thus any sane person would leave it turned off.</CLUE>

<CONCLUSION>CSS was not usable for pages to be universally displayed back
then.</CONCLUSION>

Because CSS wasn't usable, another method had to be used. Guess what.
I figured out how to tweak tables so they displayed the same way in a
bunch of browsers with the common settings. What probably pisses you
off the most isn't that I would use tables, but rather, that tables
actually could be used to do this, effectively using HTML as a drawing
language that it was not meant to be.

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 01:15:59 +0300 "W?rm" <no*************@north.invalid> wrote:

| <ph**************@ipal.net> kirjoitti
| viestiss?:e1*******@news1.newsguy.com...
|
| <snip>
|> One is that CSS was usable when this was done. It was not. It had to be
|> done entirely in tables and
|> still work on all the browsers of the day.
|
| And just for the record, your domain http://linuxhomepage.com/ was
| registered 1999 november, so much for that claim...

Another assumption on your part that means squat.

So tell me why it is you assume this is the first and only place where
this was going on?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Wÿrm]

<ph**************@ipal.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:e1********@news2.newsguy.com...

<snip>

Again, it doesn't work in all browsers of that day. See how you pick
just one browser and ASSUME it must work in all the rest.

<CLUE target="/dev/brain">NS3 had no functional CSS.</CLUE>
Your domain is from end of year 1999. In start of year 2000 netscape browser
share were around 15% mark of all browsers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N...sage_share.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...f_web_browsers

Even giving it doubt and taking assumption of 30% share
http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/bstats/months/0001-month.html Of that 30% less than
9% (even according stats that had 2x more netscape users than other starts)
were < v4, from total share of browsers used that's damn small share no?
<more junk snipped>
<CONCLUSION>CSS was not usable for pages to be universally displayed back
then.</CONCLUSION>

Bullshit. Just because you were incompetent that don't mean it was not
usable.

[Wÿrm]

<ph**************@ipal.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:e1********@news2.newsguy.com...

<snip>

What probably pisses you
off the most isn't that I would use tables

Actually I did read more some your posts, it's rather obvious now to me that
you haven't been doing anything but trolling. Now that pisses me off
actually that I bothered to reply to likely troll. So no need to bother to
answer...

<snip rest junk>

[phil-news-nospam]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:12:05 +0300 "W?rm" <no*************@north.invalid> wrote:

| Your domain is from end of year 1999. In start of year 2000 netscape browser
| share were around 15% mark of all browsers.

You are not only clueless, but also logicless. The start date of one
of my domains has nothing to do with what the whole thread was about.
As I reported before, this code was done in 1997. The particular domain
started in 1999. If you can't figure out that the code was built for
other sites earlier, then I pity you.
|> <CONCLUSION>CSS was not usable for pages to be universally displayed back
|> then.</CONCLUSION>
|
| Bullshit. Just because you were incompetent that don't mean it was not
| usable.

It was indeed broken in NS4. Of course there were people that insistent
that CSS be used regardless. I bet you were among them.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Wÿrm]

<ph**************@ipal.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:e1*********@news2.newsguy.com...

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:12:05 +0300 "W?rm" <no*************@north.invalid>
wrote:
<snip>
As I reported before, this code was done in 1997. The particular domain
started in 1999. If you can't figure out that the code was built for
other sites earlier, then I pity you.

Mind pointing that post out where you mentioned 1997, because atleast in my
newsserver there ain't no such post where you'd say that.

<snip>

[phil-news-nospam]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 19:27:34 +0300 "W?rm" <no*************@north.invalid> wrote:
|
| <ph**************@ipal.net> kirjoitti
| viestiss?:e1*********@news2.newsguy.com...
|> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:12:05 +0300 "W?rm" <no*************@north.invalid>
|> wrote:
|
| <snip>
|
|> As I reported before, this code was done in 1997. The particular domain
|> started in 1999. If you can't figure out that the code was built for
|> other sites earlier, then I pity you.
|
| Mind pointing that post out where you mentioned 1997, because atleast in my
| newsserver there ain't no such post where you'd say that.

It might have been by email to someone. With so many people responding and
taking so many different approaches on this, it's hard to remember who I said
what to. You are not the only one to take this whole thread off topic.

So what is your interest in when linuxhomepage.com started? Is it because
you think that it's the only web site I have put up? Can you explain how
it is that the start date of linuxhomepage.com relates to the topic of this
thread?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------