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

Re: Regarding implementation of SVG2 vector effects

From: Francis Hemsher <fhemsher@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:17:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFm2N+vCnHVBBXCZAygO7WCOqVOdLer9CkjFQ2+L0FGT7JiJ5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenico Strazzullo <strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com>
Cc: グルチヤンラミン <ktecramin99@gmail.com>, "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
The many individuals who have freely provided their talents to the
development of SVG, even within the authorities, share our frustrations. At
some point we all must move off this list and prepare the way...

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Domenico Strazzullo <
strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wouldn’t worry about CSS not following its course with new features. I
> do worry about SVG being abandoned.
>
> After the first announcement on this topic there hasn’t been a single
> comment by the authorities. Are they working on coordination, or preparing
> some statements, or maybe they have already abandoned the ship?
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Francis Hemsher <fhemsher@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> We should not fight the CSS juggernaut, but merely show that the symphony
>> CSS conducts does need individual notes, many of them could be the rich svg
>> components contained in SVG2 and its predecessors.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Domenico Strazzullo <
>> strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Under “normal” conditions the voice of 50,000 would have leverage, but
>>> in an epoch of characterized corruption only Justice has effective
>>> leverage, and this is no case for a judge. Even if you gather signatures
>>> for protest, to whom do you present it? I don’t think the W3 is bound to
>>> any liabilities in this scope. The specs are just recommendations, and, as
>>> we can witness, they don’t mean much without general consensus from the
>>> implementers.
>>>
>>>
>>> But give them the benefit of the doubt, if it’s not a case of corruption
>>> they have a chance to clarify their position. Let’s not forget however that
>>> the W3 is not doing anything illegal, in some contexts corruption is not
>>> necessarily a criminal offence. The W3 groups are feature markets for
>>> paying members. When any large member company agrees on some feature and
>>> then changes its mind, that may lead to under the counter negotiations,
>>> where the W3 might find itself in a delicate or unethical position in
>>> regard to the stated missions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that “large member company agrees on some feature and then changes
>>> its mind” could read “the first one there who wakes up takes a decision”
>>> for an agenda that writes itself erratically on a short term basis. How
>>> could they care for something (SVG) they don’t relate to?
>>>
>>>
>>> The W3 has never shown sensitivity to requests-protests-revolts in the
>>> past on this matter, either by snubbing or by chocking with characteristic
>>> political language.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t think we are assisting to something in the making. We are
>>> witnessing something that has already happened following a precise design.
>>> The different deprecations and non-implementation of features resulted from
>>> trading favors: 2009-2010 “You don’t implement SMIL, I sacrifice SVG
>>> Fonts”. SMIL was a key factor, a major obstacle to the CSS takeover.
>>> Microsoft would have obviously made an exemplary implementation of SMIL, if
>>> they chose to. The ineptitude of the Chrome crowd with SMIL was probably a
>>> terrific and unexpected bonus that allowed the coup de grâce for SVG.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, it’s not certain that miserable intrigues can actually
>>> obliterate a tool that is unequaled and universally adopted, that was able
>>> to arouse long lasting interest and passion among academicians, engineers,
>>> and artists. The attempt should probably fail. The motivation behind it is
>>> so cheap.
>>>
>>>
>>> In all cases I have the impression that the core of the problem on the
>>> implementers side  is to be found in the direction that is being forced on
>>> the web. Where there used to be a two face identity, that of a portable
>>> platform comparable to the operating systems on one side, and that of the
>>> best ever advertising vector on the other, it seems clear that the latter
>>> prevailed completely, not much interest being shown any longer by the
>>> decision makers for the former. The reason that is commonly invoked for
>>> that shift is “public demand”, and to support that, the developers are fed
>>> with new “new webs”. I’m all for progress, but not for relabeling frantic,
>>> hysterical and confusional activity as progress.
>>>
>>>
>>> In this post [https://lists.w3.org/Archives
>>> /Public/www-svg/2016Oct/0041.html] I put forward a very clear question:
>>>
>>>
>>> “Are you able, as an official spokesperson, to confirm that after its
>>> demotion the removal of SVG is not in the W3C agenda?”
>>>
>>>
>>> I was not expecting an answer of course, and in fact it didn’t come.
>>> Between lying and telling the truth they seem to have chosen the third
>>> option: attempting to classify the question as delusional argument by
>>> abstaining.
>>>
>>>
>>> In any event the fact that the W3 has not been fulfilling the mission
>>> stated on the SVG chart is an evidence, and therefore the organization
>>> should assess the responsibilities and take proper action by removing those
>>> who are found responsible for this situation.
>>>
>>>
>>> That’s the theory (there was a time when it was also the practice). In
>>> reality it cannot happen if honesty is not there, and without that
>>> requisite we are talking to the wind.
>>>
>>>
>>> Domenico Strazzullo
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:24 AM, グルチヤンラミン <ktecramin99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>> As a newcomer I have to confess that I got embarrassed. about the
>>>> situation...
>>>> An independent reference implementation as Dr. Hoffman wrote would be
>>>> nice, probably hard to achieve, I guess...
>>>> Its also understandable that browser vendors have their own priorities,
>>>> but when all those works and frustrating
>>>> tests are done by volunteer work ....? Probably svgwg has to get
>>>> actively involved and escalate a request for support,
>>>> if there is really a need in vector graphic market. Any other idea is
>>>> welcome..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2017-02-03 1:10 GMT+09:00 Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>:
>>>>
>>>>> Francis Hemsher:
>>>>>
>>>>> >I think web developers really like SVG. Many have no idea that 'SVG2
>>>>> is
>>>>> >twice as nice as SVG1" (A banner for a revolt?) Question is...What
>>>>> leverage
>>>>> >would 50,000 web developers have to assure SVG2 does not languish is
>>>>> limbo?
>>>>> >Any thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the new and interesting features, it was agreed on to be
>>>>> required for
>>>>> SVG2, are removed now from the draft.
>>>>> What is left, might be called SVG 0.2 again ;o)
>>>>> Authors can completely forget about this 'SVG2'.
>>>>> It was wasted time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifications and recommendations should be written by independent
>>>>> people with
>>>>> some expertise in the related field, here vector graphics and not
>>>>> influenced by
>>>>> company lobbiests.
>>>>> Obviously there has to be an independent reference implementation (for
>>>>> free
>>>>> for everybody) and there have to be independent people and tests to
>>>>> check,
>>>>> whether implementations are somehow related to the spcification or
>>>>> not, if not
>>>>> fix bugs and gaps in implementations instead of changing
>>>>> specfications, that
>>>>> have no bugs (obviously they can have bugs to be fixed as well, but
>>>>> wrong or
>>>>> missing implementations are no indications for bugs in specifications).
>>>>>
>>>>> Without this, this desaster starting with HTML5 will continue, now SVG
>>>>> 2, CSS
>>>>> as well.
>>>>> These tag soup parsers, currently mainly in use, are completely borked
>>>>> - this
>>>>> is the core problem, resulting in people trying to adjust
>>>>> recommendations to
>>>>> borked software, without a care about what might be meaninfull for the
>>>>> task of
>>>>> a format.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe in a few years we need to put our information in stone again,
>>>>> because
>>>>> digital formats are finally completely borked, a failed approach.
>>>>> Respectively the approach to get standards from companies failed
>>>>> completely.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is the impression, that digital communication is of any
>>>>> importance
>>>>> for mankind, format specifications needs to be moved to independent
>>>>> organisations (UNO? or organisations with expertise in this field like
>>>>> the
>>>>> usual metrological institutes like PTB).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Olaf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2017 15:18:05 UTC

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