Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> 3) Progressively disclose more detail for each stage of the zoom by 
> changing a css stylesheet.  I don't know which, if any, implementations 
> let you manipulate the css using javascript, though.

Implementations that support CSS will let you manipulate it through the 
CSS DOM, but for this case you would just manipulate the viewBox 
attribute using core DOM methods.

> You do want to remember that different svg implementations use 
> non-compatible ways to specify the use of javascript and css (different 
> MIME types).

This is correct in a way, but an overstatement. Mozilla has some 
political issues, but it's not a mature implementation of SVG by any 
measure anyway so in practice these aren't genuine nuisances (no one 
noticed this issue until two weeks ago AFAIK). Mozilla has most of the 
groundwork on which to build a great SVG platform, fully integrated into 
other Mozilla-supported technologies and if all you need is basic vector 
graphics and scripting it'll work mostly well. There are two factors 
currently preventing faster development of Mozilla's SVG component: 
insufficient communication between implementors and power users or the 
WG (which is being worked on) on one side, and on the other a small 
group of otherwise intelligent people with a little too much influence 
for their own good on a jihad to tell the world that the one and only 
Web content is tagsoup-plus-CSS discouraging contribution from helpful 
people. Always the optimist, I hope that when they grow tired of burning 
witches, planting bombs in crowded places, and their 
anything-that's-not-HTML/CSS-is-the-Axis-of-Evil-we-know-what-the-Web-is-and-you-don't 
crusade we'll get a chance to work on the few disagreements that lead to 
the absurd situation that we have today where people that supposedly 
belong to various "Open" credes proceed by exclusion, and those that 
publicly claim that "standards stifle innovation" embrace.

EORAMBLE. Short story: don't count Mozilla as an SVG implementation just 
yet.

> Overall, I have been happiest with Batik, but the Adobe plugin is 
> certainly convenient if you are willing to use IE.

Let's be serious, no one on this list at this date is willing to use IE 
unless perhaps for one of those reality shows where you have to do 
discusting or scary things ;) I've been a happy user of ASV inside 
Safari and Firefox (on Windows, and it works on Linux as well) for quite 
a while.

-- 
Robin Berjon