Can SVG be a potential replacement for PDF?

[Dick Margulis]

Aandi Inston wrote:

[snip]

There doesn't seem to be much universal agreement as to what "Open
standard" means. How do YOU define it?

This is true -- there is not a comprehensive and accepted definition
of "open standard".

Many people, though, feel that in addition to the standard being
published and everyone can use it royalty-free, that an "open
standard" must also be controlled by a consortium of competing
companies and organizations in their sphere of interest. The PDF
specification, for example, is not controlled by the "PDF Consortium".
Rather, it is ultimately controlled by a single corporation: Adobe. On
the other hand, SVG is essentially controlled by W3C, which comprises
a large number of corporations and organizations, many of which
compete with each other.

Mark

Mark,

I'm sure you've heard the adage that "a camel is a horse designed by a
committee."

There are many good reasons to support the creation of international
standards by committees (it would be better if they were consortia, but
calling a committee a consortium does not make it one).

However, there is also the defensible point of view that we could do
with more horses and fewer camels in the world.

My point is that when Adobe publishes revisions to the PDF standard, the
playing field is just as level as it is for any committee-produced
standard; but the change process is more efficient and therefore faster.

 

[Ralf Koenig]

What else is new

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnlong/html/avalongraphics.asp

==== quotation ============================================

"A frequently asked question is: Why doesn't Avalon just use SVG? On the
face of it, it seems strange to invent a new way of representing vector
graphics in markup when a standard already exists.

However, the principal advantage of these shape classes is that they
have been designed to integrate into the Avalon programming model. The
vector drawing elements derive from the same FrameworkElement base class
as all other XAML elements, and follow the same naming conventions. SVG
has its own set of conventions for element and attribute names that is
at odds with the existing .NET Framework class library.

Furthermore, SVG elements were not designed to fit into the Avalon
object model. By not using SVG, Avalon ensures that vector graphics can
be mixed in with any other kind of markup in your XAML, and can take
advantage of all of the same layout facilities. (Note that in the
version of the Longhorn SDK documentation released at the 2003 PDC, the
XAML elements used for vector drawing are sometimes referred to
collectively as WVG (Windows Vector Graphics).

However, Microsoft is no longer using this name, because it implies,
incorrectly, that these elements are somehow distinct from all of the
other elements supported by Avalon.)"

==== end of quotation =====================================

Ralf

 

[Mark]

I'm sure you've heard the adage that "a camel is a horse designed by a
committee."

There are many good reasons to support the creation of international
standards by committees (it would be better if they were consortia, but
calling a committee a consortium does not make it one).

However, there is also the defensible point of view that we could do
with more horses and fewer camels in the world.

Laugh. But sometimes camels are quite useful.

My point is that when Adobe publishes revisions to the PDF standard, the
playing field is just as level as it is for any committee-produced
standard; but the change process is more efficient and therefore faster.

It may be more efficient and faster, but does Adobe get it right
all the time?

Sure, they get feedback from the many stakeholding groups and
hopefully listen to them, but ultimately they will adapt the
specification to best meet (as they deem) the needs of Adobe
shareholders, with a shorter-term focus in mind (i.e., do they
care what the specification will look like in 25 or 50 years?)

There are those who argue (including yours truly) that most standards
should be developed by consortia (whose members compete with each
other in the space the standards apply) and that the resulting
standards are fully published and royalty-free to all. PDF gets it
mostly right, but I'd like to see Adobe shift PDF specification
activity, and control of the PDF spec itself, to an independent
consortium which they don't control but which they are a founding,
and equal member.

Mark

 

[paron]

My point is that when Adobe publishes revisions to the PDF standard,
the

playing field is just as level as it is for any committee-produced
standard; but the change process is more efficient and therefore

faster.

Ah, if only I could be sure that "...when Adobe publishes..." shouldn't
read "...IF Adobe publishes..."; they are under no obligation to do so.
In fact, as Mark points out, if they perceive an advantage to their
stockholders, they might be obliged to "extend and extinguish" their
own "standard." Just for instance, what if the reason they bought
Macromedia was to get Flashpaper?

Adobe is under no obligation to publish at all (the only reason they
exist at all is to satisfy stockholders), but consortia exist for
expressly the purpose of publishing.

 

[Dick Margulis]

paron wrote:
consortia exist for

expressly the purpose of publishing.

Perhaps in some alternate universe you inhabit, but not in my
experience. Companies join standards efforts (generally structured as
committees, not consortia, wishful thinking notwithstanding) to advance
their corporate interests, not to promote the general welfare. They
bicker and delay, back and forth, trying to write in clauses that favor
their own technologies, and eventually publish something about three
years after the technology is already obsolete. The longer the process
takes, the more successful the participants judge it.

 

[paron]

"Companies join standards efforts (generally structured as
committees, not consortia, wishful thinking notwithstanding) to advance
their corporate interests, not to promote the general welfare."

Exactly.

And if they're not in consortia? They suddenly get all public spirited
and release their latest and best for all to use?

I agree, consortia are just a makeshift ("takes a thief") kind of an
operation, but in my opinion are better than trusting any one of the
perpetrators by themselves.

 

[Mark]

someone else not attributed wrote:

Exactly.

And if they're not in consortia? They suddenly get all public
spirited and release their latest and best for all to use?

I agree, consortia are just a makeshift ("takes a thief") kind of an
operation, but in my opinion are better than trusting any one of the
perpetrators by themselves.

Churchill once said (my paraphrase) that "democracy is the worst form
of government, and all others are even worse."

My mentioning of the preference of standards to be authored and
maintained by consortia does not imply that's perfect, either. It's
not. There is no such thing as a perfect system.

My belief is that most (but not all) standards are better authored and
maintained by consortia groups comprised of competing principal and
minor members of the industry the standard operates in. This assures
compromise, give and take, and hopefully (but not always) a more
uniform, more consumer-friendly standard which is forward looking.

Of course, there are variations on the "consortium" theme, so instead
of having everything clearcut, black and white, we have a rainbow of
possibilities.

Ultimately, however, I think that having competing players jointly
control a standard is generally much better than control by a single
company.

Mark

 

[syeates]

To rephrase, does SVG have the power to be a substitute for PDF on a
page-by-page basis?

PDF does encryption. See: http://www.svgfaq.com/Encryption.asp

For example, could SVG be used to produce IRS
forms which would look identical to the PDF versions?

Trivially yes, since you could render the PDF to bitmaps.

Or does
Postscript still have more power than SVG at the exact "fixation" of
text on a page?

Postscript is considerably more powerful than PDF.

Unless you know in advance that the consumer of the documents is
sighted and not rendering the document via a voice I/O, how can any
of this matter? The IRS being a government agency should be reading
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm

cheers
stuart