Re: [cgmo-webcgm] SVG in IE9: was WebCGM TC working session added

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Benoit,  All --

Thanks for the heads up.  Indeed, it is something to think about.

IMHO, this could either be good for SVG or bad for SVG.  Or it could be 
irrelevant to SVG-vs-WebCGM choice decisions in WebCGM's typical 
application sectors.

How could it be bad for SVG?  I just took a look at your second reference 
(below), and spaced down reading all of the SVG comments.  Including the 
implementation limitations, performance, etc.  It is a fairly restricted 
subset (that is not completely spelled out), and admits to "performance 
work ... not yet complete", especially on large complex graphics from CAD, 
GIS, etc.

If MS becomes a team player, throws lots of resources at it, and someone 
comes up with a strict profile for technical applications, it could become 
a very attractive choice.  Following are some of my thoughts copied from an 
earlier dialog I had on this subject...

==== start ====
>But let me play devil's advocate. Microsoft SVG support in IE could 
>actually be the *worst* thing that happens to SVG. In the past, MS has 
>shown a tendency to put out its own dialect of graphics standards and not 
>worry about what is the accurate dialect (according to SVG or CGM or ... 
>conformance rules). Long ago (1990's) MS licensed a CGM filter from my 
>company HSI. They did it as a checklist item, and wouldn't take a 
>maintenance upgrade to fix some problems even when I offered it for free. 
>So MS-CGM became a broken dialect of CGM.
>
>If they take the same attitude on SVG, or the typical MS attitude of 
>"MS-SVG is the definitive SVG", then there will be problems. Either the 
>rest of the SVG world tries to change MS, or the rest of the world changes 
>to match MS. Either way, there are years of confusion and adjustments.
>
>Maybe MS will surprise me and be a humble team player on SVG. I'll believe 
>it when I see it.
>
>MS aside, if you follow the dialogs on the SVG list, you'll see that there 
>are still many discussions about "browser ABC and browser XYZ have 
>different results on test 'blah'". The good thing on the lists is that 
>there are smart people working on it earnestly. And there is a lot of 
>energy in the IG. But still, SVG is such a huge complicated standard (even 
>Tiny is huge), that this can be expected to go on for years.  (To be fair, 
>we have some uniformity issues on WebCGM 2.0 and 2.1, and this 
>interoperability topic should be a key part of our program of work going 
>forward.
===== end =====

Other thoughts?

-Lofton.

At 08:38 AM 3/17/2010 -0400, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
>I received hints a while ago that this was coming, the news is out now, 
>looks like IE9 will support (or part of) SVG 1.1 Full. See here:
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/ff468705.aspx#_Scaling_Vector_Graphics
>http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/info/ReleaseNotes/Default.html
>
>This implies that a subset of SVG will soon be available on all browsers.
>
>Something to think about in my opinion.
>
>Benoit.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: stuart.a.galt@boeing.com [mailto:stuart.a.galt@boeing.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 3:54 PM
>To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Groups - WebCGM TC working session added
>
>
>WebCGM TC working session has been added by Mr. Stuart Galt
>
>Date:  Wednesday, 31 March 2010
>Time:  07:00am - 08:30am PT
>
>Event Description:
>The passcode for the telecon is: 932246
>
>Dial in numbers:
>Canada 888-283-7545 Toll-Free
>France 0800-91-5040 Toll-Free
>Germany 0-69-51709628 Caller Paid
>Germany 0800-180-2521 Toll-Free
>United Kingdom 0808-234-2702 Toll-Free
>USA 888-283-7545 Toll-Free
>
>Agenda:
>Current Status
>
>Discuss what is next
>  - Identify unclear parts of the spec
>  - What is on the wish list
>  - Outreach
>  - Examples/Tests
>
>Please bring your ideas.
>
>
>Minutes:
>
>
>View event details:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/event.php?event_id=26847
>
>PLEASE NOTE:  If the above link does not work for you, your email 
>application may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to 
>copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of your web 
>browser.