W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > February 2017

Re: SVG's future

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 12:07:28 +0100
To: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, fhemsher@gmail.com, strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com, ktecramin99@gmail.com, sebastianzartner@gmail.com
Message-ID: <8796179.dEiBHRSO7z@ap03>
 Sebastian Zartner:

> 
> The authors should identify why there is no strong interest in
> implementing SVG 2's features.
>
...


My impression was, that for example Opera gave up Presto (with the currently 
still best SVG implemention, including parts of SVG tiny 1.2 - here we have 
already the mentioned vector effects defined and in SVG tiny 1.2 viewers 
implemented as far as defined), because they had no money anymore and
not enough users for their commercial products.
This was not related to SVG itself, but maybe it was related, they tried to
follow standards, but other vendors had more success with proprietary stuff and 
control of their customers ;-)

Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google,  Adobe, Amazon etc obviously prefer 
their own products and formats to ensure, that they can control and abase
their customers and addicted people, therefore it is natural to undermine and 
erode independent standards.
The HTML5 tag soup specification instead of only defining a simple new XHTML 
variant with a thought out concept to markup text in a semantic way is a good 
example, intentionally it is designed so complex, that new vendors are 
frustrated to attack the oligopoly with an independent new and own viewer.
Trying to jam in SVG with obfuscated notation into the HTML5 tag soups, 
removing XLink syntax, SMIL, SVG fonts is an attempt to get the same situation 
for SVG.
Well and CSS - there are mainly only drafts, but vendors propagate 
nevertheless to authors already to use their prefixed own properties and syntax 
- this is borked as well for the same reasons, there is more interest in 
making money with own formats instead of having standards for everyones use.
Formats of a persistence of decades or even centuries is not in the interest 
of companies caring about how to earn money for the next one to three months.
To get some advantage in the next months against competitors, it is of much 
more use to implement own issues, the others do not have and what is not 
specified.

EU and other organisation have a lot of rules how products have to appear to
avoid harm and fraud to the people - why not to have this for software 
products as well - defining independent standards and introducing technical 
control boards, what survives can be offered to the marked, the attempt to offer 
proprietary stuff will result in penalties - this seems to be the hip method 
currently to force companies to do something meaningful, see VW, Deutsche Bank 
etc ;o)

Olaf
Received on Friday, 3 February 2017 11:08:09 UTC

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