On 12/20/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, would it be safe to say that you can view SVG *files* in > your browser. Firefox can only render whole SVG files, not > for example, an html file with embedded .svg graphics. Different > than .png or .jpg or .gif files.
No, that's the beauty of svg in web pages. It can be seamlessly integrated into web pages. When you get done with your svg build, go to the mozilla examples page: http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Category:SVG:Examples > I suppose we'll have to keep this until somebody can provide > something definitive that says it isn't needed. I guess now > we need to figure out a good explanation for what it does. How > about, "This parameter sets the default binary directory of the > Firefox installation and is used to locate Firefox's installed > files". > > I think that is horrible, but what else can we say. Suggestions > are most welcome. Whatever, sounds fine to me. > >>>>ac_add_options --enable-xinerama # dual display support > > I'd bet this isn't needed for 99 out of 100 builders. Here's our > choices: > > 1. put it in .mozconfig and enable the option by default > 2. put it in .mozconfig, but commented out which disables it by default > 3. leave it out entirely, and just let folks use the .configure --help > to figure out if they want it. I like options to be on the page somewhere. In case of Moz, either as comments in the mozconfig file or in the Command Explanations section. I like the comments, but not in a do or die kind of way :) For this particular example, maybe it could be left out. I don't know anybody who uses xinerama. I don't think it should be on in the BLFS defaults. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
