Talk:SVG/Archive 1

message: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Diamond-caution.svg has horrible Inkscapy source, while the example code in our page is quite readable
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.211.163.68 (talk • contribs)  17 January 2007.
I don't know what is Inkscapy, but I downloaded Diamon-caution.svg into my directory and opened it with vi, but it looks completely different from the source displayed in the article. I would appreciate if someone explained it to the people like me. 140.129.151.35 05:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just looked at it, and it's the same as the source shown in the article, except for a few whitespace differences. Can you be more specific about the differences you are seeing? (By the way, "Inkscapy" presumably means "containing Inkscape-specific attributes". But that was fixed some weeks ago.) --Zundark 07:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example Code is not code of Example 

message: See http://svg.org/special/svg_phones
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.211.163.68 (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add SVG Mobiles list? 

message: It seems to me that SVG owes a fair bit to Postscript in terms of concepts, yet the article does not discuss this. Perhaps a section on history or scalable graphics languages predating SVG could tie SVG in with the history of the wider subject. At present the article presents SVG from a technical viewpoint, but could leave the reader thinking that the concepts used in SVG were developed from scratch when in fact they existed during the 1980s.
Sangwine 20:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly true that most of the graphical components in SVG (cubic and quadratic beziers, grouping, affine transforms, separate fill and stroke, reusable symbols, markers) existed during the 1980s and 1970s. Indeed, one motivation for SVG was to add industry standard graphicalfacilities to the Web. Thereare thus facilitiesin common with PostScript, also in common with CGM, GKS, and so forth (to which PostScript is also indebted). Some features, such as resolution-independent raster filter effects, are novel to SVG. I agree that a discussion of SVG needs to link into the wider world of 2D vector graphics. --Nantonos 12:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Postscript 

message: How-about some writing a comparison between these two formats -- the new standard trying to become dominant for scalable, vector images on webpages, and the existing Microsoft standard for ClipArt pictures. Which is better, for example. Color differences. Compression differences.
:Well, one advantage of SVG is it is text XML, which pretty much all web developers already have the tools to output (they do it all day using HTML/XHTML) and CSS. Relatively easy to generate from scripts using already familiar tools such as PHP.
:For compression differences, it would be a good idea to compress the SVG using gzip, since any web content is deliverable that way if the Content-Encoding header is set. WikianJim 08:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows MetaFile (WMF) Versus Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 

message: The linked SVG file is invalid. On lines 121 and 127 it has "stroke-dasharray:### ###;". The spec says () that dasharray is comma separated, not space separated. Firefox's native SVG rendering follows the spec and ignores the rule, so the lines appear non-dashed. Can someone fix this?
:Fixed it. How did you manage to find that out? Very subtle. Qutezuce 06:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He probably opened it in a viewer that doesn't ignore the rule and found that it didn't work ;) Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked SVG file is invalid 

message: The SVG wiki seems to be closed and I keep having to clean spam off it. Should we suspend the external link until it has migrated? I cannot find any suggestion of when that might be. --BozMo|talk 11:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The SVG wiki was taken down earlier this year due to spam-death.  It's recently been reborn and I've added the temporary link.  Requires an account to edit pages. Jeff schiller 04:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG Wiki 

message: The very first line of the abstract in the current SVG 1.2 Full spec states very clearly "This specification is a placeholder for an updated draft of the Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) Full, Version 1.2 specification.".  If you further take the time to READ this document you will discover it is an outline ONLY and not a draft document available for review. Jeff schiller 03:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you follow the link to the previous versions (and so forth) you will find that the SVG 1.2 Full language has, of course, been released for public review. That particular docuent merely apologises for not making an update to 1.2 to bring it into line with the refactoring introduced inSVG 1.2 Tiny. --Nantonos 18:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  NantonosAedui:  I agree with your updates now.  Jeff schiller 19:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: But drafts of SVG 1.2 Full have nonetheless been released in the form of supplements to the SVG 1.1 specification. Your edit is misleading, as it suggests that this is not the case. Probably what you meant is that a stand-alone draft (independent of SVG1.1) hasn't yet been released. --Zundark 07:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep. Jeff schiller 19:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG 1.2 Full - not yet truly released 

message: I am unable to export images as SVG in the latest build of the GIMP (2.2.10 on Windows).  If this is indeed possible, please describe how to do so here.  Thanks, Jeff schiller 14:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The GIMP 

message: Hello,
I'd be appreciate any help with the following please:
1) Creating an SVG pink/light blue yin and yang symbol. I've tried, but it doesn't scale correctly.
2) Locating a good copyright free SVG butterfly. This is the best one I have found, but I'm unsure as to whether or not I can use it in Wikipedia:
http://www.croczilla.com/svg/samples/butterfly/butterfly.svg
(Both the butterfly and yin-yang symbols are used by the transgender community).
Thanks !
Dlloyd 22:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Open Clip Art Library might be of help. heycam 01:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG help 

message: I think that the SVG#Native_support subsection could be expanded a bit to describe which browsers support which options for using SVG in webpages, as described in the SVG 1.1 Specification, Section 2.3.  Unfortunately, the browser docs that I have perused do not make this terribly clear. Thoughts? Mpd 15:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Comparison of Layout Engines (Graphics) for a detailed description of what engines support which SVG features.  I have now added a link to the Native Support article...  Jeff schiller 16:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, just re-read your comment/question and checked the section in the spec.  This is, indeed, an interesting bit of knowledge that people will want to know about.  My own experimentations have shown that Firefox 1.5 and Opera 9 TP2 allow:  Standalone, Embedding by reference (HTML:object only, no HTML:image), External link via HTML:a.  CSS property from HTML are not currently supported unfortunately.  Embedding inline (XHTML) is supported but I have not experimented with it.  Jeff schiller 16:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native support 

message: Just wondering: is there a google-images-like search engine that allows you to search for SVG images only? This would be a major help as I am trying to replace all images tagged with  with SVG (or PNG) equivalents. Thanks, -Reuvenk[T][C] 02:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add "filetype:svg" to your google search the search will be limited to svg files. But this may not be of great help, I think it only matches words found in the file name or inside the svg file. Qutezuce 02:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG Search Engine 

message: Hi, I just uploaded the new figure :Image:Weighted_K4.svg to the Commons, created using xfig. But when displayed by the MediaWiki software using firefox 1.5, only the nodes, letters and numbers are shown, but not the straight lines. When I click on the image, I get a correct display. Is this a known problem? If so, is it specific to firefox or is it a general problem? What should I do in order to include the image in an article — use it as it is or upload a png-version and mark the svg image as redundant? Thanks in advance, -- Sebdo 18:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you click on the image Firefox is rendering the SVG, but before that you are seeing a PNG image that is generated on the wiki servers, I believe by ImageMagick, so this probably indicates a problem with ImageMagick's SVG rendering. Qutezuce 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I will use PNG images then until the problem is fixed. -- Sebdo 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem displaying SVG image correctly in firefox 1.5 

message: I propose to split this page with a such long list of external links and to create another page dedicated to demos, cliparts, example. A such page should not be a single list of link but must add descriptions of the demos with some info about the way they has been built. Waiting for your advices. Spankman 06:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to split 

message: Links to themes for Linux should put in Linux articles instead. We should not link here anything that use SVG or the page will become gigantic. Spankman 06:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the themes 

message: Without to refuse proposals by Spankman above, I have created a new page of tools for SVG, in the model of other articles at Wikipedia, to reduce the size of this article that is too big and has a serious problem with external links. Booles 06:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created [[SVG Tools]] 

message: My example shows that PNG is superior. Compare this with the article's SVG example. renegadeviking
31.35 KB
:The PNG image has limited resolution. You can compress svg files into svgz format. Using this I get a filesize of 23.8kb. Qutezuce 21:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The key advantage with SVG is it's a vector format not a raster format. It is therefore resolution independent. With the original SVG, I could print a banner the size of a football field or even an American football field and it would still be sharp. With your crappy PNG, this would not be the case. I could also edit the SVG in many ways which could not be done with your crappy PNG. It's trivial (relatively) to rasterise a SVG. On the other hand, converting a raster file format in a vector is a very complex process known as OCR trace that doesn't work particularly well. In any case, as Qutezuce has pointed out, you're comparing apples with oranges. SVG is in XML and uncompressed. PNG is a compressed raster format. If you want to compare SVG to PNG, you should at least compress the SVG. Nil Einne 22:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick and dirty comparison to show the difference. Also for clarification, my references above to your crappy PNG was only intended to explain my view of the file you created, and is not intended to cause any offense to you.
 Nil Einne 23:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNG is still better 

message: I didn't know where to ask this so I am going to put it here. I have created a replacement for  at . Do I have to get permission from anyone to start replacing the PNG images with the SVG one?
:You shouldn't be replacing the image. Just replace all links to the image... You don't have to get permission. It probably would be polite to inform the content owner but there is a clear policy in favour of vector SVGs so permission is not necessary. Nil Einne 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using SVG images 

message: I think the article could use some information on what SVG is and will be used for, what advantages/disadvantages it has compared to competitors. For example, is it going to be used for gif and png type images or will it be used for jpg or even tiff type images? -- Kjkolb 19:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have misunderstood what a SVG is. Perhaps try reading the article again. SVG is not directly replacing any of these formats. It is a vector format not a raster one. However many people have been rasterising vector content due to the lack of a suitable format. Vector formats are far more suitable for diagrams and the like. Nil Einne 22:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reread the article but I still didn't find comparisons with other formats, advantages and disadvantages and such. In contrast to the other articles on image formats, like JPEG, PNG and TIFF, I don't think that the article explains what it is, how it works and what it is used for in a manner that most people can understand. -- Kjkolb 08:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are fundamentally different image types.  Compare raster graphics and vector graphics.  PNG, JPEG, and TIFF are all raster graphic formats.  SVG is a vector graphic format. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages, uses 

message: Greetings, why do certain editors(here), who wish to control(vender related?), hide behind screen names, do not provide email contact information? Transparency is good. -- Mpbolger 12:44, 02 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to some extent, but unfortunately this information can be used for harassment. Some good Wikipedia contributors have been harassed into leaving the project using information available about them on Wikipedia and elsewhere online. The lack of transparency, in the form of real names, hurts us when it comes to people's perception of Wikipedia's reliability, though. -- Kjkolb 23:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor Transparency 

message: the box containing the second, larger image displays improperly for me under both Firefox 1.5 and internet explorer, althought the display problem is to a different extent.
The second box obscures the bottom half of the second line of text in the third paragraph (it has 2 lines all the way across before it goes to narrow columns)
Basically, it should only have 1 line full width, but it has a second one thats obscured behind the box
example:
#####################
############"""""""""
##########  |       |
##########  |       |
##########  |-------|
(where # is text, " is the top half of text, and | and - are a box around the image )
I've had a look at the source, and messed it around a bit in preview, but cant seem to figure out exactly the cause.
Kaldosh 09:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article displays improperly 

message: Hello,
 I am not sure, if this is the right place for the following question. 
 If not, please redirect me to the right website. Thank you.
I am looking for a way to describe processes of a company. For this reason we want to use activity diagramms containing boxes and diamonds. Those diagrams need to have text inside (ie describing the boxes and diamonds).
Now I am wondering: 
Can I create SVG graphics, place them in a mediaWiki and search the Wiki for the text inside?
Best regards,
Thomas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thbaero (talk • contribs) 19:11, 26 July 2006  (UTC)
:I don't think that you can search for text within an svg image on Wikipedia. But what does that have to do with making activity diagrams for the company? Althepal 04:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Searching for Text within a SVG that is in the wiki 

message: In some countries this flag is forbidden by law - and there are good reasons for that. I think, it's okay to show the flag in a book about history, but not just for fun in this article. That's not funny! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.168.130.195 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 28 July 2006  (UTC)
:I am opposed to using the Nazi flag in an inappropriate manner. I do not think that there is a reason that the Nazi flag would be more useful for this article than any other symbol or image, and if there is not such a reason, it should be removed (I think it has already been removed, as I did not see it). However, I am strongly opposed to giving into laws against displaying Nazi symbols or symbols of any other type (like communist or terrorist symbols). Many things are banned in various countries, like the pictures we have of reproductive organs and the pictures of women whose bodies are not completely covered below the head. Even written information and covering certain topics is banned in some countries. For example, China blocks access to sites that have negative, but factual, information about it, and it also blocks sites that have content on the Tiananmen Square protests. We should only obey those restrictions that absolutely must be obeyed or we will be fined, sued or shut down (if we are out of the threatening government's/court's jurisdiction, we should still refuse, unless it would cause us serious problems, like if it is the U.K. who is complaining and Wikimedia board members would have to stay out of U.K. countries and their ISPs would have to block Wikipedia). Of course, we should not try to provoke a fight and should only use offensive symbols when it improves an article (actually, content of any kind should not go into an article unless it improves it). -- Kjkolb 10:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Nazi Flag 

message: The claim that The wikis that do not rasterize SVG images choose not to because rasterization using Batik is CPU-intensive and requires Sun's Java Runtime Environment, which is not free software. Besides the alleged original research, I would erase the requires Sun's Java Runtime Environment, which is not free software. There are other free VMs and Java libraries than Sun's. Hervegirod 16:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But at the moment Batik doesn't run properly on the other VMs + GNU Classpath, so it's probably a reasonable claim that it requires Sun's VM.  (Although I haven't tried IBM's...) heycam 02:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG and wikis (original research) 

message: Do you think some examples of interactive SVG's could be put into this article? Just a suggestion. 'FLaRN' (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interactivity examples 

message: I changed the native support area from suggesting that SVG is natively supported in Firefox, to suggesting that SVG is natively supported in Firefox 1.5, because it isn't supported in Firefox 2. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeotronic (talk • contribs) 4:44, 22 November 2006.
:That's not true, though.  I've got Firefox 2 installed (well, Iceweasel :)) and it does indeed have native SVG support. --heycam 22:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's try and get a reliable source to cite and fix the article one way or the other.  Who knows their way around the Mozilla project's web sites? --Nigelj 18:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one you could use: http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/SVG_in_Firefox --heycam 22:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, heycam - fixed in the article.  It looks like Zoetronic was just trying to spread a little FUD ;-) --Nigelj 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG not supported natively in Firefox 2 

message: Does anyone know why?--Vintei 18:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you haven't got an SVG renderer installed? --Zundark 20:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What's that?--Vintei 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Software that can render SVG images. If you want SVG files to display in your browser, you either need a browser that handles them natively (e.g., recent versions of Firefox or Opera), or you need a plug-in that can handle them (e.g., the Adobe SVG Viewer for Internet Explorer). --Zundark 09:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to save svg files and view them in a program, GIMP will support them. Batik is special for SVG. Inkscape is an awesome, free SVG tool which can view and edit SVGs. Althepal 03:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Computer Cannot Open SVG Files! 

message: It seems that this image contains elements that are not pure SVG as defined in the standard. There are some sodipodi and inkscape namespaces (sodipodi:rx, etc...) which can not be read by other SVG browsers, I think. It seems this problem concerns only the ball, the other parts of the image are OK. Hervegirod 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the SVG markup is a mess.  Validating it against http://jiggles.w3.org/svgvalidator/, it first fails to parse with a fatal XML error over an illegal and wrong namespace declaration ("xml").  When this is removed, we are left with 23 SVG validation errors! It's amazing it displays at all.  There's clearly lots of repetition and WYSIWYG junk in there too.  I'll have a go at fixing it bit by bit, by hand, over the next few days, but - no promises. --Nigelj 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything anything incorrect about the SVG file at all. What do you mean by an "illegal and wrong namespace declaration"? It's exactly the right namespace declaration for "xml" (which makes it redundant, but not wrong). And all the other "errors" are also not errors: the validator is complaining about declarations of namespaces that aren't mentioned in the SVG spec, but such namespaces are allowed - it's pretty much the whole point of having namespaces - and there are even examples of SVG files with such namespaces in the SVG spec (e.g., the example in section 21.3 - which the validator also complains about). Software that checks SVG files for conformance should remove such things before doing XML validation (see Appendix G.2 of the SVG spec). In short, I don't think this validator is very good. (But I agree that all the Inkscape cruft should be removed from the file - the file should serve as an example, and the cruft obscures things. An easy way to remove it is to load the file in Inkscape and save as Plain SVG. I can do this if you like.) --Zundark 10:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I tidied up the file. Now http://jiggles.w3.org/svgvalidator/ no longer complains about it, and it also passes XML validation at http://validator.w3.org/. It's also more readable, but could still be improved in that respect. --Zundark 12:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks User:Zundark for both the work on the file and the citations. Perhaps some of these points should be mentioned in the article, since this issue is likely to come up again. dr.ef.tymac 15:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image in the infobox 

message: I can not see SVG images in MSIE 7. I was fooled by the png images substituted by wikipedia on the article page and on the image page. --Timeshifter 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, as the page says you need a plugin 203.109.240.93 12:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am having the same problem.  I just downloaded the Adobe plugin, and when I go to properties on right-clicking the image, it shows a link to a .PNG image.—King Bob324 14:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG in MS Internet Explorer browser v7 

message: Are SVG's fractals? Fractals have infinite detail. So if you scale up an image and still see a smooth curve, isn't that a fractal? --C7796E2C 02:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as written in the wikipedia article about fractals : a fractal is a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be subdivided in parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced/size copy of the whole. Hervegirod 11:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are SVG's fractals? 

message: Using Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061206 Firefox/1.5.0.9
Under XP, home edition.
I have confirmed that many of the svg images (files) use a transparent background, so that the background color of the image is tha same as that of the page as a whole.  This displays perfectly in my browser; when I print the image, however, the background is solid black, losing, in many instances, text printed in black. Images that are not svg do not seem to have this problem. (But I have not tried images with transparent layers.)
I first encountered the problem when attempting to print the images at Pentomino. In addition, color shadings were often lost.  
I don't know whether this problem is due to the svg coding, the svg protocol, Windows XP, Firefox, the printer settings, or whatever.  And I am entirely too busy at present to investigate it.  I do think, however, that someone should look into it.
Too Old 06:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen similar results printing transparent GIFs on Firefox.  Perhaps this is fixed in a FF 2.0?  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble printing svg 

message: I've noticed several SVG images that wikipedia has problems with. Hebrew letters don't seem to show up on wikipedia (though letters could be transformed to path before uploading). Some files don't show parts of them smaller than a certain size on Wikipedia, even when those files are fine in Batik, like . And when wikipedia downsizes an svg, it is not as smooth as when downsizing pngs and gifs. Althepal 03:55, 6 March 2007
:Could it be the font that you're using for the letters? I know there are some standard fonts that Windows ships with, that Wikimedia doesn't support (I'd say there's Mac ones too). AFAIK it's 'supposed to use the closest matching font it does have, but I've had issues with latin letters too, in fonts which weren't supported - they didn't default to another font, they just didn't render. Try a very common font and see how that works (I think Arial is supported, but I might be wrong - I'm almost sure Times New Roman is though - at the very least, MediaWiki defaults correctly with Times New Roman) - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 12:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad SVG support in Wikipedia 

message: --J intela 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a question. First, you have to be able to view svg. In firefox, this works. You need a plugin from adobe to view this in Internet Explorer. Then, when you click on the svg so that is the only thing on the screen, go file, save page as, image.svg. Althepal 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How dose someone get SVG on thier computer? 

message: Anyone else think it might be better to have an SVG which shows of the capabilities of the format a bit better than the current one - e.g. using filters, masks etc. There's nothing wrong with the current one, but it's hardly very impressive. I know its been said before, but I'm not suggesting to show scripting or animation as was mostly suggested - only things which can be converted to a single-frame raster. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 12:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG "Icon" 

message: All vector graphics are scalable; that is the practical difference between vector graphics and raster arrays. There must be an appropriate way to explain the origin of the name, perhaps historical or anecdotal. Were the originators given to redundancy? Would not VGML make a lot more sense?
Kwstork 05:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scalable Vector Graphics Naming 

message: Is the SVG format really just a (not so) simple textfile, then? They can be edited with Notepad++, which I find really amazing. Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are text files (in some encoding, usually UTF-8). --Zundark 22:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text file? 

message: I flagged this article as "in use" because people still seem to be edit warring over the "file format" point despite the efforts to resolve this with reliable sources. User:Dreftymac and Nigelj have made some proposals based on reliable sources. Please review these, or make your own, before modifying the article. The "in use" tag should not remain in here long, so it's going to be taken out soon. Hopefully there will be some resolution before the tag gets removed. Thanks for your consideration. dr.ef.tymac 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An attempt to move forward 

message: Why PNG images need to be converted into SVG? I can start editing PNG images instantly from Microsoft Paint. Its resolution is higher and the file size is smaller in comparison to SVG. For instance, this derivative SVG image is 26 times larger than the original PNG image I uploaded. it means the web page loaded quicker with a PNG than with a SVG as now.
It is better to confine SVG versions to Commons and not replace each and every article with it. Else, each page is load slower and slower.
How do I view a SVG image anyway? I downloaded the SVG version of the above map. But I cannot see it (except on the web site of Wikipedia). Should I install additional software?
:Modern browsers already support SVG natively. I suggest you try Opera, Safari or Firefox. --Fenring (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that many SVGs in Wikimedia Commons are inefficient. But your SVG doesn't work at all, as it relies on a link to a file BlankMap-World.png on your hard disk. (And if you were aiming for efficiency, why did you leave all that Inkscape cruft in the file?) --Zundark (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, but it means the SVG image stored in the Commons is still 1MB. Suppose, the storage space available for Commons is only 1TB. It means, only 1 million SVG images. If they are optimised (by object re-use), atleast 10 million SVG images in the Commons.Anwar (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Um, nope. --Kjoonlee 16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Huge SVGs (too big when a small SVG would do the job just fine) sound awful, and I think something must be done about them. I think you should bring this up at community portals, instead of venting steam here. --Kjoonlee 16:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's SVG obsession 

message: There is one more issue. Is anyone actually checking if the SVG versions ofimages uploaded to Commons are optimised. For instance, check this SVG out. It is half the size of the original PNG image I uploaded. I reused all objects. Hence the smaller file size. But many SVG images I see in Commons are so huge they cannot be used efficiently.
:I agree that many SVGs in Wikimedia Commons are inefficient. But your SVG doesn't work at all, as it relies on a link to a file BlankMap-World.png on your hard disk. (And if you were aiming for efficiency, why did you leave all that Inkscape cruft in the file?) --Zundark (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Optimisation gives speed for SVG

message: User:Ch1902 said --> I think you're missing the point. When you upload SVG images to wikimedia projects, the thumnails used in articles and displayed on the image page are PNG images generated from the SVG by a renderer. The 1MB SVG image isn't used in articles at all, the 800px PNG render of the SVG map is only 76kb compared to your original of 86kb. However, I could download the SVG map, recolour the countries, relocate the dots and move the key in a matter of minutes and re-upload and the new PNG would still be only ~76kb but that kind of change is impossible or incredibly time consuming with the original PNG only.
:Yes, but it means the SVG image stored in the Commons is still 1MB. Suppose, the storage space available for Commons is only 1TB. It means, only 1 million SVG images. If they are optimised (by object re-use), atleast 10 million SVG images in the Commons.Anwar (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Optimisation saves space for Commons

message: I could not save a SVG image as my desktop background on my XP. Until, Microsoft begins default support for SVG, all images in Wikipedia articles ought to be only in PNG format. Otherwise, the 684 million visitors to wikipedia.org annually would see whitespace in each page.Anwar (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, nope. --Kjoonlee 16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Huge SVGs (too big when a small SVG would do the job just fine) sound awful, and I think something must be done about them. I think you should bring this up at community portals, instead of venting steam here. --Kjoonlee 16:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: XP Desktop

message: The article needs a section on DOM access to scripts. Anwar (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOM 

message: There is a large section in the article on filter effects - about 370 words, including a table and code example. There is not a single citation in this highly technical section and anyway, it seems out of place.  The SVG 1.1 spec defines 14 important functional areas or feature sets, listed below, of which Filter Effects is only one. The section seems to me to be misplaced in this overview article, aimed as it is at a general readership. I was tempted to 'be bold' and delete it now, saving a copy here for reference, but I thought I'd ask for the thoughts of others before doing so.
*Paths
*Basic Shapes
*Text
*Painting: Filling, Stroking and Marker Symbols
*Color
*Gradients and Patterns
*Clipping, Masking and Compositing
*Filter Effects
*Interactivity
*Linking
*Scripting
*Animation
*Fonts
*Metadata
SVG 1.1 spec contents list 8 - 21 --Nigelj (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. An overview of the capabilities of SVG would be more appropriate. -- Globbet (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Being in agreement with both Nigelj and Globbet, and seeing no contrary opinions, I pulled the excessively technical section out of the main article and created a new article SVG filter effects which is linked to this main article. I also used Nigelj's summary as the basis of a new Functionality section subdivided as per his list (above). For the first four, I have written capsule summaries of the purpose of these categories of functionality. As I have the time, I'm willing to complete the other ten similar descriptions, or others can do this if they are so inclined. -- Objectivesea (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, Objectivesea. Well done. --Nigelj (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Filter effects' section 

message: Is anyone following this article bold enough to add a section addressing the incredibly interesting standoff between the leading web visionaries (Berners-Lee), along with the overwhelming support of the W3C standards committee, versus the corporate interests of Microsoft and Adobe and who knows what else?  This history is fascinating and can only be motivated by billions of dollars of profit/loss on one side versus light years of rapid advance in web 2/3 presentation capacity on the other.  The mechanics of how all this happened - how SVG slowed to a crawl between 1999 and 2009 - 10 years! - has to be available out there, and I am frankly too lazy and jaded to go find it.  But someone could, and should. KTyson (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate Politics, W3C Vision, and SVG 

message: I just read the article and the second paragraph proudly states that because SVG is written in XML it can be compressed.
The article makes it look like it's a feature of XML.
But i think that saying this is a feature is putting the world on its head.
Compressebility just means that the format is somehow unefficient.
XML actually adds extra's to data to make it human-readable.
So it's not so much that XML is compressible, it's more like XML is intentionally inflated to serve it's purpose.
Then, of course, you can remove the air out of it.
It is a feature of all human-readable representations of data.
Books are compressible, so is source code.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.177.116 (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps compressibility is misplaced if it really looks to reader as if a feature of SVG, if so move it gently.  Compression is not a feature, its a strategy to compensate for the downside of a real feature, that is, readability.  Is anyone arguing against readability as a feature of XML, SVG, or, by extension, HTML?  Readability is crucial and inefficient.  Compressibility compensates a little.KTyson (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Splendidly put, both of you. (I do love the level of debate we get round here.) Have any of us got the energy (and the references) to put a few sentences expressing something like this into the main article, so that it is more fair to mention it in the lead (given that the lead is meant to summarise the main points of the article)? Something maybe also comparing the file sizes of typical binary representations of a simple (and maybe also a complex) image with its uncompressed and its zipped SVG equivalents? I could begin to do the original research for all this, but that's no good to us, we need references. --Nigelj (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, this is really a general statement about XML, and probably ought to made in that context and only briefly mentioned here. I can see why it deserves mention, if the majority of other vector graphics formats use dense non human readable encodings. Dcoetzee 10:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compressability a feature? 

message: I suggest to add a new section about tools that help programmer to use SVG as description language of UI.  I had a project, called MadButterfly at http://www.assembla.com/spaces/MadButterfly. It translates SVG into C code and have a framework that application can manipulate SVG objects to interact with users.  And, I found another tool, SPARTK at http://spark.sourceforge.net/, that is a WEB framework leverage SVG technical.  I am a newbie, here.  Is it feasible to add a new section for this topic?
ThinkerYzu (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is feasible.  Be familiar with the basic WP policies and guidelines, if you want it to stay.  Particularly in this case, be aware of notability and be sure to cite verifiable sources for every main point (and any contentious points) made.  In your case, look out for the risk of relying on self-published material, and especially avoid opening yourself to accusations of self-promotion.  But don't let all that put you off - it's not really a total jungle in here, it's just that everybody wants the best for WP :-)  There are also people who have points-of-view for and against the use of SVG (some preferring other approaches, invented by others).  In order to end up with neutral overall coverage, some such counter-arguments may have to be mentioned in the end, in line with their relevance and notability.  Good luck. --Nigelj (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As tools are mentioned:  Happens that the W3Schools have some online live SVG Examples you can edit.  I personally think it's the quickest + easiest way to understand SVG mark-up. I checked:  W3S is mentioned many times so I gather that it's considered a reliable source(?) Can it be added? I'll check this page in a while and if I see no objections I'll add it (unless some else does it)  － Cy21 ➜ discuss  19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UI Development Tools 

message: Please see the discussion at Talk:Image file formats#Naming_conventions_for_image_file_formats on naming conventions for articles on image file formats. Dcoetzee 00:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions for image file formats 

message: The text in an SVG file may not be portable.
The same font files need to exist on the machine where the image was made as on the machine used to view the image. Otherwise, the viewing machine may substitute a different font, perhaps de-centering text (due to different aspect ratios in the substitute font) and it may transliterate Greek characters to something from an English alphabet. An SVG image uploaded to Wikipedia may not render as expected in a visitor's browser — nor in the preview PNG image created by Wikipedia because the Wikipedia server may not have the same fonts as the machine where the images was created.
The foregoing rendered the effort to create the image here wasted. -Ac44ck (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fonts are a problem. See Wikipedia:SVG_Help#Font_issues. --Zundark (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The @font-face CSS standard (originally invented by Microsoft but adopted by W3C) is now supported by all modern browsers in their current (unstable) beta builds. This property also works for SVG in Opera - not other browsers yet but I'm sure they will adopt it soon enough so the problem with fonts might not be around long. I know MediaWiki uses rsvg which isn't in use in any browsers (FF uses Cairo, Opera uses Presto, others use WebKit) but it may come round. ɹəəpıɔnı 02:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caveat about text needed