Talk:Comparison of layout engines (SVG)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] WebCore needs updating
The recently released Safari 3.0 Public Beta has support for SVG... does anybody know the details as to which modules are supported? --Shadowlink1014 03:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've updated the WebCore data in the table using the new link under references. I can't find anything newer though -- the status probably has been updated since. --Shadowlink1014 20:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] KSVG no longer developed?
I've just tidied up a few things outside the tables, mostly adding a "Footnotes" section. I noticed that http://svg.kde.org/ hasn't been updated since 2005-08-20, and didn't find any more recent code in its subversion repository, so I said in a footnote that "KSVG seems to be inactive as of 2007." (I'd love to be proved wrong about that.) Cheers, CWC 02:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- see http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/ksvg-devel/2007-June/000514.html --Hhielscher 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah-hah! That makes perfect sense! (Excerpt: "as far as I know the ksvg developers are currently contributing mainly to the Apple Webkit project".) Thanks, Hhielscher. CWC 00:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What about other layout engines ?
Why can't we find the plugins layout engines in the tables (Batik, Adobe SVG Viewer, ...) ? They are more serious renderers than (most of) the browsers' native layout engines. Any objection to the add ? --Fenring 14:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- None at all. Possibly the page should be moved to "Comparison of SVG renderers". In fact, I was surprised not to find librsvg here - particularly as librsvg is what Wikimedia uses for SVG rendering. I'm fixing up the SVG section of the MediaWiki manual: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Image_Administration#SVG . - David Gerard (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- You mean renaming the article ? Yes, some of us are thinking about renaming the "Comparison of layout engines (...)" series articles. Do you know any source that shows the status of the librsvg implementation ? --Fenring (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I found enough work for the next few weeks ^^ The point is: Shall we split up the article? If I/somebody else add a few more layout engines/plugins/etc. the page become very big... I think that the editors are important to add. They are on my list, but they have a very low priority. Mabdul (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think Trident, Tasman and iCab should be removed as they aren't svg renderers. We'll add them if they start to support svg. And I eventually think the editors should be compared in another article, comparing their capabilities of producing SVG instead of rendering, which is different. --Fenring (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I found enough work for the next few weeks ^^ The point is: Shall we split up the article? If I/somebody else add a few more layout engines/plugins/etc. the page become very big... I think that the editors are important to add. They are on my list, but they have a very low priority. Mabdul (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] incomplete article
ok, we need somebody who can add the rest of the "tags" which are used in the svg-language. i don't know them, but i can add tem for the rest of the other browsers/plugins if i search for them ;) but i need the empty tablesMabdul (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Layout engines vs Libraries and plugins
Why make the distinction between "Layout engines" and "Libraries and plugins". Can't we consider Gecko as a library too ? Aren't ASVG and batik layout engines ? The fact these layout engines are include in some browsers or not, can be plugged in or not, ... is not very notable in this article, imho. --Fenring (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
