[mapguide-internals] Review RFC 108 - support Watermark

[Jason Birch]

I understand point #4 from an ease-of-use perspective, but personally
would be really annoyed if something I did at the map level had an
effect on any of the layers I've developed and maintain independently
for use in multiple maps. I also think that this should be implemented
client-side (as an intermediate screen when wms-published layers
detected? "Also apply watermark to these WMS published layers?")
rather than server-side.

Jason

On 2010-08-04, Buddy Hu <Buddy.Hu at autodesk.com> wrote:
> Hi Trevor, Tom, Jason and Jackie,
> Thanks for your comments! Here is my reply.
>
> 1. For the image storage, I agree with you guys. We will abandon the DWF
> file for image storing. And using Symbol Definition to define the
> content(but NOT the position) of the Watermark. And the position of
> watermark is defined in Layer Definition/Map Definition.
>
> 2. For the watermark resource , I still think we need a new resource type,
> and the map/layer definition can reference this resource.  As Tom mentioned,
> the separate resource type is easy for reusing. And I don't think the
> Watermark is very simple, we need to define the position, rotation,
> transparency and etc. So I think a separate watermark resource type is
> necessary. At the same time, we will support inlining watermark in the Map
> Definition and Layer Definition.
>
> 3. The Layer Definition also support watermark reference. A map support
> multiple watermarks, and the complete watermark group is the collection of
> all the watermarks of underlying layers and defined watermark in Map
> Definition.
>
> 4. For the WMS publishing, I think we still need to discuss whether copy the
> watermark of MapDefinition into the each referenced layers.
>
> And I will give you the xsd of watermark and the updated xsd of
> MapDefiniton/LayerDefinition tomorrow.
>
> Thanks all!
> -Buddy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Tom
> Fukushima
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 11:38 AM
> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
> Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] Review RFC 108 - support Watermark
>
> Jason,
>
> I'll wait for updates to the RFC before replying to some items below.
>
> With respect to the "Watermark requirements are generally pretty simple"
> statement; that's true for simple copyrights statements; but for anyone who
> wants a more professional looking map with, for example, some branding, then
> a full-fledged vector-based symbol is required and defining it in XML is a
> pain.
>
> Images do not make good watermarks because they do not print well.
>
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 8:30 PM
> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
> Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Review RFC 108 - support Watermark
>
> Watermark requirements are generally pretty simple, text or image.  I can't
> imagine that adding an incredibly simple WaterMark editor that only places
> those types into a SymbolDefinition would be too hard, and that folks with
> more more complex requirements would be unable to hand-craft the XML in
> those cases.
>
> I wasn't questioning the need for an external watermark definition, just the
> need for a dedicated resource type for it.  Could the MapDefinition schema
> and LayerDefinition WMS header information be updated to point to an
> appropriate resource, along with whatever additional positional
> information/overrides required?  So add a <Watermark /> entity to the
> MapDefinition which contains the symbol definition's ResourceID along with
> positional preference (TL, T, TR, L, C, R, BL, B, BR), and dimension/scale
> overrides.
>
> I'm assuming that you'd need positional preference rather than precise
> placement due to the possible need to stack WaterMarks?  Does the WaterMark
> need its own Opacity too?
>
> I'd prefer not to make assumptions about whether DWF was weighed against
> SymbolDefinition, and would like to hear whether there is still some
> potential to reconsider this decision. If this call is always going to be
> made because clients have easy ways of generating DWF symbols, then we're
> going to see continued propagation of DWF (which is not under an
> OSI-certified license) throughout the code base.  I really, really don't
> like this, and would prefer to see the feature deferred if there are
> inadequate resources to do it "right" (by my admittedly narrow definition of
> right).
>
> Jason
>
> On 30 July 2010 14:06, Tom Fukushima wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I agree with Jason, Jackie, Trevor,... that SymbolDefinition resources
>> should be supported. But I don't think that means we can't also support
>> DWF
>> symbols. So I think it should be fine to support DWF now and then not
>> exempt
>> ourselves from supporting SymbolDefinitions in the future. (I'm assuming
>> that the ADSK team that is working on this has weighed using DWF symbols
>> and
>> SymbolDefinitions already and has decided on DWF symbols, and only has the
>> development resources for that right now.)  Let me say though, that I'm
>> not
>> that keen on propagating the use of DWF symbols in MGOS, and if we had a
>> WYSIWYG symbol definition editor somewhere I would be all for
>> SymbolDefinitions everywhere.
>>
>> I wish that the watermark resource could just refer to a DWF Symbol
>> library
>> instead of attaching it as DWF symbol data, but I guess this might create
>> a
>> pretty unusable UI.
>>
>> Buddy, I would like to see what the changes to the MapDefinition will be
>> for this (XML is API and needs to be documented in the RFC).  Please add
>> this to the RFC.
>>
>> Please also provide the watermark resource schema.
>>
>> Jason, I was also wondering why a new resource is required, but after
>> thinking about it, I think that it will make maintaining a bunch of Maps
>> and
>> WMS layers simpler.  Just tweak one place and all other places are
>> adjusted.
>> That said, maybe it could be made possible to also allow for inlining the
>> watermark specification into the MapDefinition.  If we only had
>> development
>> resources for doing one or the other right now, I think I would pick using
>> a
>> separate resource; no strong preference here though.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tom
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
>