File talk:European Output of Books 500–1800.png
跳转到导航
跳转到搜索
SVG template
[编辑]
Concerning the {{svg|graph}}, the uploader and I discussed it, dismissed it and have no interest in using a SVG file. However, I would not object to uploading a SVG version, as long as this PNG file remains online. Is this possible with this template? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly what you two do or don't find acceptable is irrelevant. Files on commons are not merely here to support the writings of the uploader, they are there for anyone to use. You may or may not know it, but a vector file will print at the absolute maximum of the output device, whereas a PNG will only output at the maximum resolution of the file itself. The tag is there to categorise the image as being possibly better for the project in SVG form. It is not an instruction to the uploader to convert it, it is there to categorise it as a file that can be benefited in SVG form and it is not supposed to be deleted until actioned. It is very rare for a PNG file to be deleted just because there's an SVG equivalent. And it's very rare that a PNG file is more useful than its SVG equivalent, certainly on the wikis. Now given that you've virtually admitted you don't know what the tag is all about may I suggest that in the future you don't delete a tag you don't understand, let alone edit war over one. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Fred! Apologies, I certainly didn't mean to cause any irritation when I first removed the {{svg|graph}} tag. I understand the reason for adding this tag originally, since only a PNG version of a graphically relatively simple file was provided. However, before deleting the tag, I added the source code for the file (it's a LaTeX document, with the native output format PDF). This, I believe, is in line with the information provided on Commons:Media_for_cleanup#PNG_or_JPEG_images_that_should_be_SVG: "Raster images generated by libre (free) software programs, for which a source file is made available under a libre license (...) should be left alone probably if the program does not provide SVG output, or else it may even be *harder* for subsequent editors to modify the image". That's why I removed the tag. Anyone who needs a larger resolution than the one provided can easily reproduce the diagram in a vector format (PDF), without the quite substantial drawbacks of the Wikimedia SVG renderer, which generates output that is inferior to the pre-rendered PNG version that I uploaded. That's why I explained to Gun Powder Ma why I would not suggest uploading an SVG version (output per se is not better (bad kerning, missing fonts, no antialiasing), source code is available and file can be recreated and adjusted using free software). I think these reasons are sufficient to warrant removing the tag from this file (and the other five in the same series).--Tentotwo (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Totally understandable arguments, until one takes into account a couple of truisms. Firstly I rather doubt the average viewer knows how to use latex to output a PDF even if using Linux and given that the vast majority of viewers are on the Windows platform it becomes even more relevant. Then as you probably know using Latex to output to SVG is just as fraught with difficulty. As for the wikimedia renderer, well that's simplicity to negate. You just click on the svg file link and what is displayed is the original SVG and not a PNG rendered version. You merely need to save the page as an SVG file to get the original file. So given the simplicity of the latter compared to Latex -> PDF -> SVG... Additionally, once one has the raw SVG file one can use either free or proprietary software to convert that SVG file into anything one likes, including a higher resolution PNG file that has been uploaded. So all in all wouldn't you say that having a vector version as well is beneficial to the project? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your last point: Having a vector version available in addition to the pre-rendered PNG file is definitely desirable. However, in this case I don't think SVG is the format of choice, but instead it would have to be PDF, since that's what LaTeX outputs. Producing an SVG version of this file would involve an intermediate conversion step, because LaTeX can not directly output SVG (not strictly correct, it can with very simple images by using the tex4ht compiler and the pgfsys-tex4ht.def driver, but that doesn't work here). Since the purpose of a vector file in this case is primarily to allow the viewers to print high-resolution versions or convert the file to their own format of choice, and not to edit the graph (that should be done by editing the source file and compiling using LaTeX, which really isn't very hard), PDF would be fine. And even if someone does want to edit the image directly, instead of editing the source code, they could, since Inkscape can open PDFs. Would you agree that in this case, uploading a PDF of the file and linking to it using the {{vector version available|new image name.pdf}} tag would be sufficient to satisfy the goal of the {{svg|graph}} tag and allow for it to be removed?--Tentotwo (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I said before, I think you underestimate the ability of the majority of viewers to be able to use Latex, much less have a copy of a Latex compiler on their machines. I'm a long-experienced computer user/worker (since about '79) and my experience with Latex is extremely limited. But yes I do agree that having a PDF available would be beneficial, if only for the fact that I can extract an SVG version from it (on the premise that the PDF wrapper will actually contain a vector version and not a raster version). --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the PDF will contain the proper vector version of the file, plus properly typeset and kerned text. If I upload the PDF version and link to it, can I remove the {{svg|graph}} tag?--Tentotwo (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that whatsoever. Many thanks for jumping through my hoops for this :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the PDF will contain the proper vector version of the file, plus properly typeset and kerned text. If I upload the PDF version and link to it, can I remove the {{svg|graph}} tag?--Tentotwo (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I said before, I think you underestimate the ability of the majority of viewers to be able to use Latex, much less have a copy of a Latex compiler on their machines. I'm a long-experienced computer user/worker (since about '79) and my experience with Latex is extremely limited. But yes I do agree that having a PDF available would be beneficial, if only for the fact that I can extract an SVG version from it (on the premise that the PDF wrapper will actually contain a vector version and not a raster version). --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your last point: Having a vector version available in addition to the pre-rendered PNG file is definitely desirable. However, in this case I don't think SVG is the format of choice, but instead it would have to be PDF, since that's what LaTeX outputs. Producing an SVG version of this file would involve an intermediate conversion step, because LaTeX can not directly output SVG (not strictly correct, it can with very simple images by using the tex4ht compiler and the pgfsys-tex4ht.def driver, but that doesn't work here). Since the purpose of a vector file in this case is primarily to allow the viewers to print high-resolution versions or convert the file to their own format of choice, and not to edit the graph (that should be done by editing the source file and compiling using LaTeX, which really isn't very hard), PDF would be fine. And even if someone does want to edit the image directly, instead of editing the source code, they could, since Inkscape can open PDFs. Would you agree that in this case, uploading a PDF of the file and linking to it using the {{vector version available|new image name.pdf}} tag would be sufficient to satisfy the goal of the {{svg|graph}} tag and allow for it to be removed?--Tentotwo (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Totally understandable arguments, until one takes into account a couple of truisms. Firstly I rather doubt the average viewer knows how to use latex to output a PDF even if using Linux and given that the vast majority of viewers are on the Windows platform it becomes even more relevant. Then as you probably know using Latex to output to SVG is just as fraught with difficulty. As for the wikimedia renderer, well that's simplicity to negate. You just click on the svg file link and what is displayed is the original SVG and not a PNG rendered version. You merely need to save the page as an SVG file to get the original file. So given the simplicity of the latter compared to Latex -> PDF -> SVG... Additionally, once one has the raw SVG file one can use either free or proprietary software to convert that SVG file into anything one likes, including a higher resolution PNG file that has been uploaded. So all in all wouldn't you say that having a vector version as well is beneficial to the project? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Fred! Apologies, I certainly didn't mean to cause any irritation when I first removed the {{svg|graph}} tag. I understand the reason for adding this tag originally, since only a PNG version of a graphically relatively simple file was provided. However, before deleting the tag, I added the source code for the file (it's a LaTeX document, with the native output format PDF). This, I believe, is in line with the information provided on Commons:Media_for_cleanup#PNG_or_JPEG_images_that_should_be_SVG: "Raster images generated by libre (free) software programs, for which a source file is made available under a libre license (...) should be left alone probably if the program does not provide SVG output, or else it may even be *harder* for subsequent editors to modify the image". That's why I removed the tag. Anyone who needs a larger resolution than the one provided can easily reproduce the diagram in a vector format (PDF), without the quite substantial drawbacks of the Wikimedia SVG renderer, which generates output that is inferior to the pre-rendered PNG version that I uploaded. That's why I explained to Gun Powder Ma why I would not suggest uploading an SVG version (output per se is not better (bad kerning, missing fonts, no antialiasing), source code is available and file can be recreated and adjusted using free software). I think these reasons are sufficient to warrant removing the tag from this file (and the other five in the same series).--Tentotwo (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Population context
[编辑]
Tentotwo, I realize that estimates or historical European populations are difficult, but it would be really great to have some graphic that would give an idea of the per-capita changes. Say, an overlay of a population estimate curve with error envelope, on a second y-axis? I know modern data finds that the modal number of books in a household is often fantastically below the mean, but book-distribution data from the 5th century seems like too much to ask :), and just a ~per-capita impression would be very helpful. Thank you very much for this graphic. HLHJ (留言)
