-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Moin, On Monday 10 July 2006 20:27, Rob Church 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. 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/

Rob Church wrote: 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

Tels wrote: 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. 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

Tels wrote: 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. 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..... Yes, but ain't it grand how it does it? atb r

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Moin, On Monday 10 July 2006 22:25, Rob Church wrote: 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: 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/