![]() The algorithms attempt to estimate the bulk motion of the vehicle and its rotation about its mean position by fitting many small pieces of information gathered from low quality or short duration scatterers detected in either the raw range- compressed signal history or in the complex image. This paper explores the effectiveness of models of the second kind by testing a set of motion estimation algorithms against motor vehicle targets imaged by a high-frequency SAR at long range and low grazing angle. By contrast, the imaging of large ships in sea clutter yields a wealth of information of the motion of the body. This question is particularly important for the imaging of small targets in ground clutter since the available information on the target motion may be very limited. A major unsolved problem is whether it is better to develop a deterministic model of the motion or to fit the observations to a mathematical model which may be ambiguous with a wide range of physical target motions. Inverse-synthetic aperture radar (ISAR) processing algorithms require an explicit or implicit model of the motion of the target, since this information is not measurable at the sensor. In addition, the analysis shows how cavity/inlet shape-specific information may be estimated from an ordinary ISAR image. We examine an older (and less accurate) model based on a weak-scattering modal expansion of the structure which appears to be well-suited to ISAR imaging. Many of the more complete and accurate scattering models require extensive knowledge about the cavity/inlet shape and size and, moreover, are numerically intensive - features that make them unsuitable for many imaging applications. Since inlets and cavities (typically) make a strong contribution to the radar field scattered from aircraft targets, these artifacts often confound the image interpretation process and considerable effort has been spent in recent years to model, isolate, and remove these sources of error. The more difficult it is, the more specific each solution will be which can cause fragmentation between different custom element libraries that end up having very specific requirements for things like SSR to work properly.Īs an example of the opposite, the Declarative-Custom-Elements proposal would bring some standardization to custom elements as far as representation in HTML, which would make it easier to create things like SSR, and make it easier for custom element libraries to have a chance at being compatible with each other (there are still issues, the community would still need to make its own standards on top of that proposal, but the community standards would simpler and smaller).The standard ISAR high-frequency weak-scatterer model is inappropriate to targets with inlets and cavities, and images created under this model assumption often display artifacts associated with these structures. How would anonymous custom elements be represented in HTML? It seems this would make things like SSR (server-side rendering) more difficult to achieve. ![]() On the main topic, for what the OP is asking, I agree with that custom element registries scoped to ShadowDOM is a better approach for encapsulation of naming and implementation. It allows practically the same thing as custom elements (you write classes with the same life cycle methods), but allows you to have more than one of them associated with an element (which is convenient) without changing the original tag name of the element (for example apply them to or elements without breaking the DOM parser behavior like you otherwise do with custom elements that don't use the is="" approach which Safari does not want to implement for various valid reasons). That's a little tool I made which is basically an alternative to the is="" attribute (so basically an alternative to custom elements). ![]() :) That indeed could serve as an alternative in some cases but maybe not what the OP is asking for. ![]() I just saw this, it seems very interesting: I'm just observing that the need to register classes at all makes working with custom element classes more complex. But looking at other libraries on the web today that export classes, I can usually instantiate those classes immediately no other bookkeeping is required. In which the tag name is, at best, a side concern, it would be nicer to be able to just create the class and instantiate it.Īddressing this is clearly not essential - we can work around the problem. The main thing I'm trying to convey is that, over the past couple of years, I've come to realize that the number of situations in which I actually care about the tag name is small. define ( 'my-element', MyElement ) const myElement = new MyElement ( ) Class MyElement extends HTMLElement const myRegistry = new CustomElementRegistry ( window.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |