I don't know much about SVG, but why would any external program need to rasterize an SVG image. I thought that the whole point of SVG was that it could be scaled very easily and not lose any detail.
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Church Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 2:18 PM To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] MediaWiki 1.7.0 and SVG support
On 10/07/06, Bekki Janssen bekki.janssen6@merseymail.com wrote:
Does MediaWiki 1.7.0 automatically support SVGs???
Since I resort to shouting RTFM when I want to be a total asshole, allow me to kindly point you to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:%24wgSVGConverter.
MediaWiki supports SVG images in as far as you can allow them to be uploaded, and specify an application to use to rasterise them to PNG images; similar to how it can interact with ImageMagick or another converter, to scale images server-side.
Rob Church _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
On 10/07/06, Frederich, Eric P2173 eric.frederich@siemens.com wrote:
I don't know much about SVG, but why would any external program need to rasterize an SVG image. I thought that the whole point of SVG was that it could be scaled very easily and not lose any detail.
Lack of browser support for SVG.
Rob Church
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Moin,
On Monday 10 July 2006 20:27, Rob Church wrote:
On 10/07/06, Frederich, Eric P2173 eric.frederich@siemens.com wrote:
I don't know much about SVG, but why would any external program need to rasterize an SVG image. I thought that the whole point of SVG was that it could be scaled very easily and not lose any detail.
Lack of browser support for SVG.
No. Both Opera and Firefox have really good SVG support in their latest version (both available for free). Likewise,for IE there is the good Adobe plugin, which is installed more or less automatic, and free, too.
Not sure about Safari. And konqueror, you need fairly late one for that,but upgradingKDE is a bit of a pain. OTOH, these two do not really matter in the browser statistics atm.
The real reason why SVGs aren't simple allowed as uploads is that SVG can contain scrips that are executed client-side, and this poses a security risk.(You dont want to let everyone upload scripts that are executed automatically on each visitors machine).
And since there is currently no real "cleaner" for SVG to get rid of the scripts, the raster-solution was used.
Yes its not optimal and I think SVG should be allowed since its very cool and usefull. But something needs to be done about the scripts first.
Btw, anybody wanting to play around with SVG and mediawiki can install this extension:
http://www.bloodgate.com/wiki/index.php?title=Graph
The page also shows you whether your browser supports SVG.
Best wishes,
Tels
- -- Signed on Mon Jul 10 21:33:02 2006 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
"Zudem könnten nun nicht mehr nur Täter, sondern auch Opfer abgehört werden, um diese besser zu schützen." Jörg Bode, FDP - http://heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-11.12.03-003/
On 10/07/06, Tels nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com wrote:
No. Both Opera and Firefox have really good SVG support in their latest version (both available for free). Likewise,for IE there is the good Adobe plugin, which is installed more or less automatic, and free, too.
Browsers improve. Gasp. Features that exist now didn't, back then. And demanding that users install plugins and extensions to browse web sites is the mark of someone who doesn't have a grasp on what they're doing, in the broad scheme.
Rob Church
Rob Church wrote:
On 10/07/06, Tels nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com wrote:
No. Both Opera and Firefox have really good SVG support in their latest version (both available for free). Likewise,for IE there is the good
Adobe
plugin, which is installed more or less automatic, and free, too.
Browsers improve. Gasp. Features that exist now didn't, back then. And demanding that users install plugins and extensions to browse web sites is the mark of someone who doesn't have a grasp on what they're doing, in the broad scheme.
Once again I bring my tiny,tiny soapbox out and shout.
"Yes!"
Rob gets it right again.
For those who don't understand - mark it down to another thumbs up for Rob et al for the good work they do in giving us great tools and even better platforms to make these tools better.
For the rest - sorry for the bandwidth blip, but sometimes evne the lurkers in the log pile need to say their piece.
r
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Moin,
On Monday 10 July 2006 22:50, Ron Hall wrote:
Rob Church wrote:
On 10/07/06, Tels nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com wrote:
No. Both Opera and Firefox have really good SVG support in their latest version (both available for free). Likewise,for IE there is the good
Adobe
plugin, which is installed more or less automatic, and free, too.
Browsers improve. Gasp. Features that exist now didn't, back then. And demanding that users install plugins and extensions to browse web sites is the mark of someone who doesn't have a grasp on what they're doing, in the broad scheme.
Once again I bring my tiny,tiny soapbox out and shout. "Yes!" Rob gets it right again.
In my opinion, he "doesnt get it". All the users of my mediawiki installation have SVG support in their browsers and security is no concern for them. To deny them SVG in the mediawiki just because somebody else doesn't have SVG support on their browser is just silly.
Once again, mediawiki is used for alot of other sites beside wikipedia.
What Wikipedia does, OTOH, is something entirely different.
Best wishes,
Tels
- - -- Signed on Tue Jul 11 01:36:28 2006 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
"To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent." -- Unknown
Tels wrote:
Once again, mediawiki is used for alot of other sites beside wikipedia.
Yes, but it doesn't matter much, since MediaWiki is written solely for the Wikipedia projects, and not for any other site. I feel fortunate that there are so many options that allow me to run the software in a couple different environments, one of which is quite security-concious.
What Wikipedia does, OTOH, is something entirely different.
Only to a point. You cannot expect a solicitation for a new feature (or a heavy modification of an existing feature) to start any differently than "does it make sense for MediaWiki's developers to devote their time to this feature". One of the first questions they will ask is, "Is this useful for Wikipedia?"
In any case, if you wish to have SVG in an article without MediaWiki interference, simply edit your list of whitelisted HTML tags and just add the SVG code to the page.
There's little call to jump in and start attacking others on this list--particularly Rob who is one of the major contributors to MediaWiki. If you disagree with the decision on SVG, there is nothing to stop you from writing or commissioning an SVG extension or contribution, and contributing it.
Any sort of constructive conversation would be preferable and much more useful than flying off the handle.
Hínandil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Moin,
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 01:56, Hínandil wrote:
Tels wrote:
Once again, mediawiki is used for alot of other sites beside wikipedia.
Yes, but it doesn't matter much, since MediaWiki is written solely for the Wikipedia projects, and not for any other site. I feel fortunate that there are so many options that allow me to run the software in a couple different environments, one of which is quite security-concious.
What Wikipedia does, OTOH, is something entirely different.
Only to a point. You cannot expect a solicitation for a new feature (or a heavy modification of an existing feature) to start any differently than "does it make sense for MediaWiki's developers to devote their time to this feature". One of the first questions they will ask is, "Is this useful for Wikipedia?"
In any case, if you wish to have SVG in an article without MediaWiki interference, simply edit your list of whitelisted HTML tags and just add the SVG code to the page.
There's little call to jump in and start attacking others on this list--particularly Rob who is one of the major contributors to MediaWiki. If you disagree with the decision on SVG, there is nothing to stop you from writing or commissioning an SVG extension or contribution, and contributing it.
Er, actually I didn't disagree with that decision, I just remembered that it was done for a different reason. But Brion already summed that better up then me could ever do.
Any sort of constructive conversation would be preferable and much more useful than flying off the handle.
That's what I said. :)
Best wishes,
Tels
- - -- Signed on Tue Jul 11 19:46:19 2006 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
"A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a work station." -- Unknown
Tels wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Moin,
On Monday 10 July 2006 22:50, Ron Hall wrote:
Rob Church wrote:
On 10/07/06, Tels nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com wrote:
No. Both Opera and Firefox have really good SVG support in their latest version (both available for free). Likewise,for IE there is the good
Adobe
plugin, which is installed more or less automatic, and free, too.
Browsers improve. Gasp. Features that exist now didn't, back then. And demanding that users install plugins and extensions to browse web sites is the mark of someone who doesn't have a grasp on what they're doing, in the broad scheme.
Once again I bring my tiny,tiny soapbox out and shout. "Yes!" Rob gets it right again.In my opinion, he "doesnt get it". All the users of my mediawiki installation have SVG support in their browsers and security is no concern for them. To deny them SVG in the mediawiki just because somebody else doesn't have SVG support on their browser is just silly.
If you are designing for the masses (I'm talking millions of users here - your userbase is how big???), then the common denominator will win out. I am a firm believer in building to "good" standards.
Once again, mediawiki is used for alot of other sites beside wikipedia.
Sure we use it for internal documentation and as a quasi-portal for our group.
I have used it to present an HTML tutorial. I'm thinking of building one for high school trig.....
What Wikipedia does, OTOH, is something entirely different.
Yes, but ain't it grand how it does it?
atb
r
What extension is used by the wikimedia sites?? i'm using it for svgs like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WoW-imitator
Bekki
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email address at http://www.merseymail.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Moin,
On Monday 10 July 2006 22:25, Rob Church wrote:
On 10/07/06, Tels nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com wrote:
No. Both Opera and Firefox have really good SVG support in their latest version (both available for free). Likewise,for IE there is the good Adobe plugin, which is installed more or less automatic, and free, too.
Browsers improve. Gasp. Features that exist now didn't, back then.
As I recall, the decision to not support SVG (on wikipedia) was mainly due to security concerns, and not because it "doesnt work". Maybe I was wrong, but there is no need for sarcasm, tho.
Plus:
And demanding that users install plugins and extensions to browse web sites is the mark of someone who doesn't have a grasp on what they're doing, in the broad scheme.
Thanx for the insult. I can't change the fact that IE needs a plugin for SVG. (it needs plugins for a lot of other things).
And in any event, it is not _your_ choice to make what users want to use or not. Some people are just happy that a piece of software supports SVG now, and entirely transparently for the users.
Mediawiki is used on a lot of other sites beside wikipedia, and maybe these people really want SVG support, security issues and browser support aside (read: for many internal wikis neither security nor browser support do matter - like when the software support group installs SVG for every user anyway).
But this is actually a seperate issue fro whether Wikipedia allows SVG as SVG upload or rasters them to PNG, or not.
In any event, please spare me your sarcastic replies and insults the next time, I prefer a more friendly discussion.
Best wishes,
Tels
- -- Signed on Tue Jul 11 01:29:00 2006 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
Kernel Panik is here! - http://ubersoft.net/kpanic/
Tels wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 22:25, Rob Church wrote:
On 10/07/06, Tels nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com wrote:
No. Both Opera and Firefox have really good SVG support in their latest version (both available for free). Likewise,for IE there is the good Adobe plugin, which is installed more or less automatic, and free, too.
Browsers improve. Gasp. Features that exist now didn't, back then.
As I recall, the decision to not support SVG (on wikipedia) was mainly due to security concerns, and not because it "doesnt work". Maybe I was wrong, but there is no need for sarcasm, tho.
We do support SVG on Wikipedia and in MediaWiki, as an option, if you install and enable one of several possible support programs.
At the moment we only do server-side rasterization because browser support detection, code sanitization, and inline display features haven't been written yet. Market penetration is still limited -- only the latest major revisions of Firefox and Opera support SVG, while Safari and the all-imported, all-hated Internet Explorer still don't without plugins -- and browsers are still rather inconsistent as to how well something will render and behave across platforms.
As browser support for inline SVG continues to improve this will become a more and more useful thing, and eventually it will get written.
Of course, if some particular person wants such support *right now*, they'll have to either: * write it themselves * find someone else to volunteer to write it * hire someone to write it
In the meantime, SVG uploads with server-side rasterization are available now, and work with all browsers as well as the rasterizer program you install can render.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org