1 / 21

WebCGM & SVG Revisited

WebCGM & SVG Revisited. Lofton Henderson Dieter Weidenbrück. Revisited? . 2003 study to cut hype & provide data about… Why two W3C Recommendations for s.v.g.? Lots of claims Little real data Since then… Changes in SVG (new stuff in 1.2 WD) Better understanding of some issues

doyle
Télécharger la présentation

WebCGM & SVG Revisited

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WebCGM & SVG Revisited Lofton Henderson Dieter Weidenbrück

  2. Revisited? • 2003 study to cut hype & provide data about… • Why two W3C Recommendations for s.v.g.? • Lots of claims • Little real data • Since then… • Changes in SVG (new stuff in 1.2 WD) • Better understanding of some issues • Evolution of implementations • Results have been disputed

  3. Some Key Differences Found • Technical • Object linking • DOM, Event model • Animation, Styling • Encoding & File sizes (esp. raster images) • Interoperability framework

  4. 2003 Overall Conclusion • Despite vastly greater power of SVG, WebCGM actually has an edge in functionality specific to Technical Graphics. • WebCGM has edge in: • Specificity • Stability & Maturity • Reliability

  5. 2004 Results Preview • Technical differences narrowed (not gone). • WebCGM still has interoperability framework edge. • SVG is making real progress in other application sectors. • SVG for peripheral applications to core TG, e.g., training animation.

  6. Context: Technical Graphics Requirements • Complex geometry with modest graphical rqts • Precision • Text • low typographical requirements • precision • Metadata rqts – modest but very specific • Reliability • Reusability and longevity • Interoperability

  7. About the Formats • WebCGM • profile of an established ISO standard, • targeted at Web-based technical graphics • SVG • New W3C standard, • targeted at creative graphics & design, high- quality, dynamic Web pages

  8. W3C Says… • “W3C Graphics Activity Statement” • There are two different markets for vector graphics • “W3C scalable graphics requirements” • WebCGM: partial; SVG: full • In principle: they should coexist & complement

  9. Questions • Isn’t SVG much more powerful? • There are lots more than 2 SVG viewers • Do it with scripting • Raster comparison is unfair • Isn’t clear-text XML an advantage?

  10. More Questions • Isn’t CSS styling a big advantage? • You confuse formats & implementations • SVG 1.2 will fix that • Use <g> (or class) for ‘name’ linking • WebCGM is perfect but SVG is not?

  11. Updated 2004 -- graphics • Ref: tables in Big Paper • SVG 1.2 will have: • Non-scaling lines, link title & multi-link, screentip. • Out-of-line link solution (actually, 1.1) • (Text issues clarified) • (Raster capabilities clarified) • WebCGM (2.0) is getting: • Simple DOM and limited styling; • Better developed event model

  12. Interoperability framework ‘04 • The paramount consideration for TG • Measured on several axes • Extensions • Resource limits • Language flavors and profiles • Predictability of text model (==) • Completeness of implementations (**) • Test suites (==) • Maturity and stability

  13. Interoperability framework ‘04 • WebCGM update • 1st release of WebCGM product data (+ICS) • Interop problem tracking system • Incremental development of the 5 plug-ins • Minus: no summary matrix raw ICS • Minus: divergence with ATA, AECMA

  14. Interoperability framework ‘04 • SVG update • Number of plug-ins increased from 2 to 4 • More tests for 1.1 • Updated implementation status matrix • a few 1.2 tests (unpublished) • Functional completeness of implementations improving. • Minus: Validator dead?

  15. Interoperability framework ‘04 • SVG and profiles • “Responsibility of application sector” (e.g., ATA) • No Rules for Profiles for now. • Assessment: a TG profile is a MUST.

  16. Looking ahead • WebCGM outlook • WebCGM 2.0 stuff: limited DOM, events • Go live with “Interop Problem Tracking Service” • Develop roadmap • Re-sync with ATA • Resource pinch

  17. Looking ahead • SVG outlook • Finish 1.2 (2004/2005) • Continued penetration mobile, 3GPP, etc • Some talk of SVG support group/consortium • Profiles? (sort out a venue for TG profile development)

  18. Conclusions 2004 • Technical differences: • In published versions, WebCGM still has some edge over SVG • Will narrow with publication of SVG 1.2 and its product implementation • Won’t disappear completely • But it’s a second-order difference • Interoperability framework is the big difference

  19. Conclusions 2004 • Early life cycle of standards • Initial excitement & high expectations • Copious but unfocused implementation • Partial/wrong implementations too numerous • Deflation of expectations • Core group organizes and attacks problems • Interop confusion slowly mitigates • Slow improvement of usability/productivity • SVG is in first half • WebCGM is in second half

  20. All things considered… • WebCGM still has edge for TG because: • Strict profile focused on TG, versus none. • Stability of the standard itself. • Maturity of the implementations. • Support group (CGMO) focused on interoperability solutions.

  21. Q and Ahttp://www.w3.org/Graphics/svghttp://www.cgmopen.org

More Related