W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2004

Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: vector effects

From: Andreas Neumann <neumann@karto.baug.ethz.ch>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:58:20 +0100
Message-ID: <41AB00CC.7030105@karto.baug.ethz.ch>
To: www-svg@w3.org


>>As to the complexity of vector effects: yes, they might not be trivial to
>>implement, but they are certainly doable.
>>    
>>
>
>Everything is doable. See my .sig. That isn't really the point. We have to 
>implement a bazillion specs and we have to do so in a tiny amount of space 
>with a finite number of engineering and testing resources. It simply isn't 
>feasible nor desirable to support redundant or rarely-used features.
>
>
>  
>
thats an argument that I can understand. But it should not prevent the 
SVG WG to go further with their standardization efforts. I'd rather like 
to see the browsers implement a SVG sub profile than nothing at all. 
That subprofile could be SVG 1.2 basic or SVG 1.1. Or, if you like a 
subprofile called "SVG static" defined by W3C to be used in a webbrowser 
for static display of vector graphics. I could also live with a separate 
"SVG application profile" that is only supported by Adobe/Batik or any 
other full SVG UA and not by the average webbrowser.

For the long run: you cannot deny that there is a demand for the web to 
go towards rich client applications, where intelligence is moved from 
the server to the client. The web today, and even more in the future, is 
not just about static documents any more. This is where SVG and Flash 
come in. And i'd rather have this trend guided by a W3C group than let 
it be defined by a single proprietary company (Macromedia).

>>If you want, you could also do a poll on the svg developers list and 
>>would find out that a lot of people on this list would have a use case 
>>for one or more features of the vector effects proposal.
>>    
>>
>
>That's a self-selected group, and is not representative of the people that 
>Web browsers would be targetting in so far as vector graphics are 
>concerned. It _is_ an important group, of course, but for most users, 
>their primary contact with vector graphics is sites like:
>
>   http://badgerbadgerbadger.com/
>
>  
>
well, at least there are 5000 subscribers, who, I suppose, represent a 
good enough cross-section of the developers out there on the web, with 
different priorities, domains and backgrounds. 5000 is a quite good 
number to be representative. (I am talking about the yahoogroups)

>...and I don't see anything in the graphics of that animation that 
>requires more than <path> and animation features.
>  
>
but, thats a self-selected, random example as well. How could that 
example be representative for the needs of all the people out there?

>Currently the difference between SVG1.2 and the vector graphics language 
>that Web UA manufacturers would like to implement is roughly the same as 
>the difference between Docbook and HTML, IMHO. DocBook serves a very 
>important role in specialist environments (and there are a lot of those 
>environments), but at the end of the day, HTML is good enough for the 
>Web's document needs. (It leaves something to be desired when it comes to 
>apaplications, but that wasn't what it was designed for.)
>
>  
>
that might be a good approach that could be accomplished by having SVG 
profiles.

Andreas
Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 10:58:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:53 UTC