[mapguide-internals] Review RFC 108 - support Watermark

Wed Aug 4 13:21:53 EDT 2010

By client side, I meant that Studio or Maestro be responsible for
doing any Map->Layer migration of the watermark assignment, rather
than having this be done automatically server side when the watermark
is defined on the Map.

Your point about a server-wide definition for a  watermark is a good one.

WMS allows specification of multiple layers in one call (LAYERS= I
think) but I don't know if MapGuide supports this.

On 2010-08-04, Dave Wilson <dave.wilson at autodesk.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by client side.
>
> I think we need to separate and or determine when a "layer" based watermark
> would be used.
>
> In a dynamic map I would expect it rare that an individual layer would
> contain a watermark. I would expect the map to contain the watermark, but I
> won't preclude the option to set a layer based watermark, the question is is
> this for dynamic maps, WMS or both?
>
> When configuring a layer for WMS I can see setting a watermark specific to
> the layer. Alternately I can see setting a default watermark resource to be
> set for any WMS request not requiring a layer specific value to be used. The
> server level default could be disabled if desired or overridden by the layer
> level. If the end user has a map which requests multiple transparent layers
> from the same WMS server would we expect each to contain a watermark? If
> ideally it ends up in the same location hopefully they appear as one, but I
> suspect things may be off by a pixel or two: this would look really ugly. Do
> we anticipate multiple WMS layers from the same server to be displayed at
> once?
>
> Is it possible in any way to request multiple WMS layers be integrated into
> a single image from a WMS server?
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:08 AM
> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
> Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Review RFC 108 - support Watermark
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>