Re: SVG vs. WebCGM

[...on the WG list...]

I was just about to suggest it, what Chris did.

Chris, there is a more recent version yet,
http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/webcgm_svg.htm .

It is linked from the top of this page,
http://www.cgmopen.org/webcgm/readings.html ,
along with the actual presentation at XML Europe (2004).

[Note ... small quibble ... the version you linked was from XMLE 2003, I 
think.  The above version was written in response to some criticism of the 
2003 paper, mostly from a bunch of somewhat inaccurate assertions from a 
SVG guy at Adobe.  Imagine Adobe defending and supporting SVG!!!  ;)   ]

You will note the FAQ section in the later paper, which points to the 
earlier paper and answers questions/comments about it.

Do you want to update your reply?  Or shall I?  Or ...?

Thanks,
-Lofton.


At 04:04 PM 9/12/2006 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:

>Hi Jeff,
>
>On Tuesday, September 12, 2006, 4:08:25 AM, you wrote:
>
>JS> You knew someone would ask this eventually, I'm surprised the
>JS> charter doesn't mention it.
>
>(Agreed the WebCGM WG charter does not mention it).
>
>It has come up many years ago, in fact. The comparison was discussed at
>several XML conferences, for example XML Europe 2001:
>
>SVG and WebCGM ­ A Comparison
>Chris Lilley, Graphics Activity Lead, W3C, France;
>Dieter Weidenbrück, CEO, ITEDO Software, Germany
>
>http://www.gca.org/attend/2001_conferences/europe_2001/graphics.htm
>http://www.gca.org/papers/xmleurope2001/papers/html/s12-1.html
>
>a later, more up to date comparison
>http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/cgm-svg-20040419.html
>
>
>JS> What is the differences in SVG and WebCGM?  Is SVG intended as
>JS> general/all-purpose while WebCGM is only for technical/industrial
>JS> drawings?  This seems like a rather arbitrary distinction.
>
>The main difference is field of use. The industrial technical graphics
>community picked CGM many years ago, its is today very widely used in a
>particular market segment (primarily defence, aerospace, and
>automotive).
>
>Those users wanted an evolutionary improvement to add reliable,
>vendor-neutral web linking; this requirement was met by WebCGM 1.0.
>http://www.cgmopen.org/webcgm/w3c_rpt.html
>
>At the same time, CGM has some limitations. Its not easily stylable with
>either CSS or XSLT; it is not in XML; it lacks the graphical richness
>needed for design intensive graphics; it has no animation capability.
>
>This is why SVG was started, after W3C had grappled with CGM (over the
>period 1996 to 1998). http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-SVGReq-19981029
>
>In general, WebCGM can be converted to SVG 1.1 without loss[1]. Even in
>the technical graphics community, SVG is also used for training
>materials etc (which need animation and more graphical richness) but the
>long lifecycle technical documentation still needs to use CGM. WebCGM 1
>and WebCGM 2 are still valid ISO CGM and thus can be used in systems
>whose requirements were drawn upin the mid 1980s.
>
>Note that tools for generating WebCGM, such as ISODraw, often export to
>SVG as well.
>
>Some features from SVG, such as having a DOM, are now being added to
>WebCGM 2.0; but the main driver for WebCGM 2.0 is five years of
>industrial experience with WebCGM 1.0.
>
>JS> Why do we need two standards for scalable vector web graphics?  Can
>JS> someone outline the purposes, distinctions, directions of these two
>JS> seemingly competing standards within the W3C ?
>
>Hopefully the above clarifies this to some extent. Happy to answer
>follow-on questions.
>
>
>[1] 99.5%, anyway - the CGM name attribute behaves like a non-unique ID
>and XML does not have such a construct.
>
>--
>  Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
>  Interaction Domain Leader
>  Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
>  W3C Graphics Activity Lead
>  Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG