Talk:Scalable Vector Graphics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Typography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Removed image[edit]

File:Difference between SVG and other file types.svg
Difference between SVG and other file types

Aguzer (talk · contribs) added this image to the page in this edit. I removed it, saying, "Reverted good faith edits by Aguzer (talk): Rv baffling image. Please explain on Talk page what aspect of SVG this is meant to illustrate, as that is not clear." Aguzer has responded on my personal talk page saying

Original:" SVG dosyalarının içeriği taşınabilir dir. Yani katman halinde. Diğer dosya türlerinde ise öyle bir şey yok. O resim bunu anlatıyordu. " Google Translate: " SVG files are portable content. So if the layer. Other types of file is no such thing. That picture tells it. "Aguzer (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What do other editors think? I don't think that the concept of layers is specific to SVG; I don't think that the image particularly illustrates the benefits and possibilities offered by layers; I think it is just as likely that a reader will see the image and think it means that coloured objects do not register correctly with their neighbours after an SVG file is saved and re-loaded. --Nigelj (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Original:" SVG dosyaları kayıt edildikten sonra yeniden düzenlenebilmektedir. Ancak diğer dosya türleri özel programlarla sadece açıkken katmanlar halinde yapılabilir. Onlar kayıt edildikten sonra artık düz bir yüzey gibi olurlar. "
Google Translate:" SVG files can be rearranged after being registered. However, only when other types of files with special programs can be done in layers. After the fan as they are no longer a flat surface. "Aguzer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Original:"Diğer dosya tipleri saklandıktan sonra artık düz bir yüzeydir."
Google Translate:"After being stored in the other file types is no longer a flat surface."Aguzer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose including image. Yes, SVG file contain objects that can be edited. Not sure that should be emphasized because many SVG images will be generated from a source with more information. The SVG files I've looked at have a lot of noise in them. The given file suggests 3D data exists, but that is not the case. It does not illustrate the desired concept. Glrx (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

New links[edit]

This edit reintroduced a previously deleted SVG converter link and added two other links. One new link is an SVG converter, and a second is an SVG editor. The links are:

  • SVG-edit – Online graphics editor (free program running inside of the web broeser, based on SVG-DOM and JavaScript)
  • SVGConv - The online SVG converter - Online converter that converts SVG to JPEG, PNG, GIF, BMP, PDF, PS and other formats; processes multiple SVG files in multiple output formats in one step
  • Go2convert – Online converter, which - among many other format conversion tasks - can export SVG to various raster image formats (JPEG, GIF, TGA, BMP etc.)

These links are SVG tools and do not contain content about SVG. There are many tools for editing SVG, and the previous section (Scalable Vector Graphics#Software and support in applications describes some. WP need not advertise an online tool (that has little documentation). Converters are of limited utility to general readers given that current web browsers can render SVG. The Go2Convert.com is not an "online" tool; it requires a download. Furthermore, the added section is more akin to an External links section. The links sound in advertising.

I would revert the edit, but I've already done that once. Glrx (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Links removed today stated based on original research[edit]

This one appeared dead/unresponsive:

The above sites were removed from the article today by an IP user who made a large number of edits. The stated reason for removal of these links was explicitly WP:OR. From the edit summaries, I am assuming that the editor attempted to convert some unknown file using each of these services. Given that we are listing some such services in the article, should these be put back in the article? What criteria are we using for including such a service in this article? —Makyen (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Makyen: is this list needed? Just wondering. George8211 // Give a trout a home! 12:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
@George8211: I'm not sure, which probably shows some personal bias. My issue with the edits was that they were paring down the list based on testing against some undefined file, with unknown criteria applied to the output. I would not have much of a problem with doing so if the file was a defined, standardized image and the criteria matched against the output was specified. When I first visited this article, quite some time ago, I found the list to be helpful. Makyen (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings. WP isn't supposed to be a directory, and lists of application software end up being spam magnets. On the other hand, a tool that converts a bitmap to SVG can be useful. I have several such tools that are not in the list; CorelDRAW did a supprisingly decent job a few months back. For the most part, converting raster to vector does not work well; the result must be edited with a vector graphics editor.
I don't think we should list SVG to bitmap converters given the browsers will now do that job. It's not that interesting.
Taking a broader view, the real issue is not bitmap to SVG but rather bitmap to some vector graphics format (many of the example tools list many graphics formats). So the simple way out is to mention that there are many tools that Vectorization (image tracing) / convert bitmaps to vector formats (such as SVG) and be done with it. Maybe point to Comparison of raster-to-vector conversion software. Glrx (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Plug-in section removal?[edit]

Do we really need an entire section describing old plug-ins for a single version of an old browser? I don't seen any need to keep Plug-ins section around. --209.203.125.162 (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say keep it mostly as is for now. While IE8, or earlier, is down to about 5% of the accesses to Wikipedia, IE8 still accounts for about 20% of all web traffic according to at least some firms.
After some significant additional time has passed, it would be appropriate to reduce, but not remove, the section. Wikipedia, in general, does keep historical information. At some point in the future, it could be reduced to something like:

"Internet Explorer, up to and including IE8, was the only major browser not to provide native SVG support. IE8 and older require a plug-in to render SVG content. Several different plugins were made including: Ample SDK, Batik,[1] Google Chrome Frame, GPAC,[2][3] Adobe SVG Viewer,[4][5] Corel SVG Viewer,[6] Raphaël, Renesis Player,[7] and SVG Web[8][9]. Microsoft joined the SVG Working Group[10] prior to releasing initial SVG 1.1 support in Internet Explorer 9 beta.[11]"

— Makyen (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Page coding issue ..[edit]

Check out the "green square with a black outline" example section (Scalable_Vector_Graphics#Example). Depending on the width of the open browser window, some of the XML code appears overlayed on the green square. Obviously this is a page coding issue that needs attention (ie, the code box is not wrapping properly). JimScott (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved the image so now the code in the example shouldn't overlap the image. Some may prefer to have the square appear directly below the code, without any text flowing around it. If so, they can make the change. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)