Written by Warbo the 28 Aug 08 at 05:13.

Implementation in a click-to-change-zoom way would be difficult for interactive SVGs, hence I think always rendering to fit in the browser window is best, unless they specify a physical (ie. mm, inches, etc.) size.

PS: I'd say the question of scaling up SVGs designed to be small is out of scope for this idea. I think SVGs with dimensions smaller than the browser window should rendered with those dimensions.

Implementation in a click-to-change-zoom way would be difficult for interactive SVGs, hence I think always rendering to fit in the browser window is best, unless they specify a physical (ie. mm, inches, etc.) size. PS: I'd say the question of scaling up SVGs designed to be small is out of scope for this idea. I think SVGs with dimensions smaller than the browser window should rendered with those dimensions.

Written by Warbo the 24 May 08 at 16:48.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #9040 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #9040 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by xVx the 11 Aug 08 at 16:04.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #12110 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #12110 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by Rochambeau the 13 Sep 08 at 21:40.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #13157 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #13157 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by nightalon the 20 Apr 09 at 02:38.

The epiphany-webkit package worked pretty well in 8.10, but I can't get it working in 9.04. The Gecko (FF's rendering backend) version always loads.

That is not a complete resolution to the issue. Midori was also OK, but it's still unstable in 9.04 at this point. Epiphany's Webkit version is the obvious answer since Epiphany will ultimately switch from Gecko to Webkit, or so it seems. Epiphany is also somewhat integrated into Nautilus as far as I can tell, for those who like their browser integrated with their file manager.

(Like Windows Explorer, especially in the good old days! Ha.)

A lot of people might find Google Chrome to be a Webkit-based solution to this problem. I like Chrome, I run a pre-alpha daily build version on my Ubuntu install, but I sometimes think Google is too big for its own good. A solid WebKit browser that is detached from such a large corporation would be ideal.

Maybe someone would even consider porting it to Mac and Windows!

The epiphany-webkit package worked pretty well in 8.10, but I can't get it working in 9.04. The Gecko (FF's rendering backend) version always loads. That is not a complete resolution to the issue. Midori was also OK, but it's still unstable in 9.04 at this point. Epiphany's Webkit version is the obvious answer since Epiphany will ultimately switch from Gecko to Webkit, or so it seems. Epiphany is also somewhat integrated into Nautilus as far as I can tell, for those who like their browser integrated with their file manager. (Like Windows Explorer, especially in the good old days! Ha.) A lot of people might find Google Chrome to be a Webkit-based solution to this problem. I like Chrome, I run a pre-alpha daily build version on my Ubuntu install, but I sometimes think Google is too big for its own good. A solid WebKit browser that is detached from such a large corporation would be ideal. Maybe someone would even consider porting it to Mac and Windows!

Written by AndrewLuecke the 20 Apr 09 at 02:47.

There is no good reason to help develop projects which are playing catchup at this time. It would make more sense for us to throw resources into developing Firefox, to allow it to integrate as well as possible, and be the best.

There is no good reason to help develop projects which are playing catchup at this time. It would make more sense for us to throw resources into developing Firefox, to allow it to integrate as well as possible, and be the best.

Written by rakudave the 21 Apr 09 at 08:55.

* Full integration with GTK+ 2.
* Fast rendering with WebKit.
* Tabs, windows and session management.
* etc...

Midori 0.1.6 passing the Acid3 Test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_(browser)

* Full integration with GTK+ 2. * Fast rendering with WebKit. * Tabs, windows and session management. * etc... Midori 0.1.6 passing the Acid3 Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_(browser)

Written by kazagistar the 21 Apr 09 at 16:20.

Firefox already has a competitor in Chromium, and it is already driving innovation. Sure, its not a "right now" solution, but in a year we should have a nice Webkit browser available for download.

Firefox already has a competitor in Chromium, and it is already driving innovation. Sure, its not a "right now" solution, but in a year we should have a nice Webkit browser available for download.

Written by Shady3D the 21 Apr 09 at 17:20.

i think of this as sooner or later Google will stop helping Firefox as it became a competitor.

if just canonical helps Firefox to be faster at opening the browser, and don't suck much memory specially on flash, and better JavaScript performance, also a 64 native version that will be awesome.


NOTE: i am using Firefox 3.5 Beta, now most of the plug-ins aren't available, but the performance is much more improved and there are new features like if u drag a tab out it will make it in new window.

i know its hard for canonical but the browser is very important, as we are moving to the cloud, and i don't trust Google, and making a ubuntu browser from scratch will be a hell of a job, and Firefox have the 2nd place already, so if Firefox got the chrome speed many people will stay on Firefox.

i think of this as sooner or later Google will stop helping Firefox as it became a competitor. if just canonical helps Firefox to be faster at opening the browser, and don't suck much memory specially on flash, and better JavaScript performance, also a 64 native version that will be awesome. NOTE: i am using Firefox 3.5 Beta, now most of the plug-ins aren't available, but the performance is much more improved and there are new features like if u drag a tab out it will make it in new window. i know its hard for canonical but the browser is very important, as we are moving to the cloud, and i don't trust Google, and making a ubuntu browser from scratch will be a hell of a job, and Firefox have the 2nd place already, so if Firefox got the chrome speed many people will stay on Firefox.

Written by suoko the 21 Sep 09 at 00:42.

i noticed that chromium is far more compatible with websites than FF versions later than 3.0
since many people want to have a FF version similar to the one shipped to win users, they probably install 3.5 or later versions which are quite picky about non standard websites

i noticed that chromium is far more compatible with websites than FF versions later than 3.0 since many people want to have a FF version similar to the one shipped to win users, they probably install 3.5 or later versions which are quite picky about non standard websites