W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2016

Minutes, 8 December 2016 SVG WG telcon

From: Nikos Andronikos <Nikos.Andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 00:20:20 +0000
To: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8630B230-B507-4317-A56D-59E3A3A07FE2@cisra.canon.com.au>
https://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-svg-minutes.html

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                    SVG Working Group Teleconference

08 Dec 2016

   [2]Agenda

      [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Dec/0002.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-svg-irc

Attendees

   Present
          nikos, stakagi, AmeliaBR, Tav, shepazu

   Regrets
   Chair
          Nikos

   Scribe
          nikos

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]SVG 2 feature feedback
     * [6]Summary of Action Items
     * [7]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <scribe> scribe: nikos

SVG 2 feature feedback

   [8]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLSS
   FG2sjaJ8V8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/edit?usp=sharing

      [8] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLSSFG2sjaJ8V8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/edit?usp=sharing

   nikos: We have feedback from MS, Google, and FireFox
   ... it's not very promising. Lots of 'don't support'
   ... I would like to get some context - is this we won't ever
   support, or we don't have time to work in the next year

   Tav: I think I'm going to end my involvement. This is basically
   nothing
   ... InkScape will probably move away from SVG too

   shepazu: Just because Microsoft won't implement things, doesn't
   mean we won't get other implementations

   AmeliaBR: As you said Nikos, we need to get clarification if
   this is just this year or ever
   ... certainly not supporting text in shape is rather strange
   when some browsers already support shape-text in css

   shepazu: not supporting text-orientation? That's weird

   AmeliaBR: that's already been fully implemented in places

   Tav: yeah I guess it should be clarified. But this basically
   says SVG 2 is dead as far as I can tell
   ... there's really almost nothing in here

   AmeliaBR: it looks like they've gone through and marked what
   they are actually working on
   ... I think text-transform is already supported in all browsers
   and has been marked as a X

   nikos: Seems like next stage is to have a discussion with the
   people who gave feedback

   AmeliaBR: The problem we have is the people who are
   representatives are not the people who use or implement SVG
   ... we see it on GitHub where the people filing issues are not
   the people who are representatives

   <stakagi> We are now developing to implement the implementation
   of vector-effect and embedded content to firefox.

   AmeliaBR: having people who are graphically involved with the
   authoring process is important for understanding the pain
   points, etc
   ... it needs to be said, without browser support for advanced
   SVG. Is the SVG spec naturally going to fork? Is there still a
   desire for an open format for vector graphics?
   ... if you can't use those vector graphics in web sites?
   ... We would basically need specialised graphics software -
   Adobe and possibly others, to get involved
   ... is there support for going ahead with standardisation of a
   version of SVG with advanced graphical features?
   ... and is there enough support in the W3C to continue that?
   ... or is SVG as an advanced graphics language dead? And all
   that is useful at this point is to standardise it as it is
   currently supported in web browsers
   ... and clean up cross browser incompatibilities without adding
   new features

   nikos: My feeling is that you would be looking at a different
   set of W3C members to support SVG as a general open format for
   vectors

   Tav: I had an interesting discussion with someone - was talking
   about a mesh gradient poly fill in Canvas. He noted that Canvas
   has great support and could see where SVG is hitting a wall

   shepazu: The browsers have for a long time wanted to reduce
   features and optimise for polyfills and script implementation
   of features
   ... their attitude towards SVG seems to reflect taht
   ... I heard discussions about this at TPAC. They were oblivious
   to the fact that without script none of these features work
   ... and all these features using script reduces performance
   client side
   ... and the fidelity and ability of the language
   ... I'm very disappointed by these results
   ... To be frank, I don't think they're thinking very deeply
   about the problems on the web. Developers rather than browsers
   are leading the way

   nikos: The things the browser vedors seem to want to work on
   are based on what the engineers want and the code they know
   well and that's pretty sad

   Tav: In terms of manpower. Where are we? We have two people
   leaving at the end of the year.

   shepazu: W3C will put a staff contact on if there's interest
   from the browsers in getting the cleaned up version of SVG 2
   completed

   nikos: I'd be willing to put in my own time if there's interest
   in new features and not just butchering the spec. There's
   little motivation for me to do that.

   AmeliaBR: what I expect would happen is move SVG under CSSWG
   and the spec will be a tiny fraction of what we've been working
   on

   shepazu: I'm not totally pessimistic. Think there's a chance
   for some CSS related features to be pushed forward.

   nikos: Ok so let's talk about what our plan is now

   shepazu: Tav has made it pretty clear what his plan is

   Tav: I will definitely go ahead and do SVG 2 text - the way I
   wrote it there's SVG 1.1 fallback
   ... so that will get done and will replace SVG 1.2 text
   ... mesh gradients are going to be released

   nikos: Good. I think InkScape totally following the SVG spec is
   unnecessary. It should push ahead

   Tav: It will - carefully

   shepazu: If things are to move to incubation. There's a
   possibility of doing some stuff in an incubator group
   ... maybe it's time for developers to look at it from a
   polyfill perspective and take control of SVG, because the
   browsers don't seem to be leading on it

   <stakagi> +1

   Tav: I had problems with mesh gradients because there's no way
   to embed a canvs in an svg shape

   shepazu: Think we could get traction with that because that's
   the direction they want to go in

   Tav: I came across bugs in Chrome and Firefox that blocked me
   ... haven't documented them yet - was going to bring them up
   with the group

   shepazu: When you get the chance, you should file some bugs

   nikos: Houdini custom paint is promising. I have a feeling it
   may not be powerful enough for that sort of pixel bashing.
   ... It's something we should have a go at so we can provide
   feedback

   Tav: I can provide some topics for next week if we want to talk
   about this

   nikos: Ok. It's worth documenting them
   ... Let's call the meeting there

   RRSAgent: make minutes

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

The information contained in this email message and any attachments may be confidential and may also be the subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately advise the sender by return email and delete the information from your system.
Received on Friday, 9 December 2016 00:21:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:46 UTC