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

Re: SVG's future

From: グルチヤンラミン <ktecramin99@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 13:04:46 +0900
Message-ID: <CA+kmfkShgwRUXnX4EGJJjM-eBVV7EQ8N9ZhL5d8Lii9sNegXmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenico Strazzullo <strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com>
Cc: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, Francis Hemsher <fhemsher@gmail.com>
I am wondering when people from svg will finally comment on this.
For sure there must be a 'need' for writing standards.


2017-02-06 5:00 GMT+09:00 Domenico Strazzullo <strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com
>:

> Sebastian,
>
> I read you. But please believe that all that kind of debating does at this
> point is shift the focus from the essential point. Olaf is basically
> complaining, and he's just right to do so. People have the right to know.
>
> For the adoption of SVG over the years you can take a look at the number
> of members of different lists, and how those figures grew, sometimes
> exponentially following constructive announcements.
>
> Domenico Strazzullo
>
> PS: your vision on the sax is funny :) the keys were designed to normally
> be under the fingers! I'm not so sure it would be easier to play
> reshuffling the keys... Plus, more than the physical difficulty to get a
> sound, to be able to play a jazz solo requires to know music well, harmony,
> etc. Lots of study, and in no way that can be made easy. The same with any
> scientific or artistic discipline, it's not a question of easy or
> difficult, you study hard and with passion, and with miles of practice it
> eventually becomes easier. Nobody is forced to do that. There are easier
> activities available.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Sebastian Zartner <
> sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Domenico,
>>
>> On 5 February 2017 at 14:26, Domenico Strazzullo <
>> strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sebastian,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Sebastian Zartner <
>>> sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3 February 2017 at 12:07, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >  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 ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Sure, companies live from their customers. And it's the decision of
>>>> the customers which products they use.
>>>>
>>>> I have the impression you are trying to imply that the eventual removal
>>> of SVG should be simply considered, and accepted as, a fatality.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. I was actually advocating for the implementation of SVG 2
>> features in different places already.
>>
>>  SVG is not a product, and its users are users, not customers. SVG is an
>>> open source specification, and we don’t need to reiterate here the
>>> advantages of open standards vs proprietary, nor their very reason of
>>> existence, which you seem to put back in question with expired
>>> argumentation.
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>>>
>>>> It's clear that the big players have the most influence on the
>>>> standards. But, as said above, it's up to the users which products to
>>>> use.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not quite so. The users, as consumers, use what is proposed to them. But
>>> not even that! The question here is not what is proposed to them, it is
>>> about a widely adopted tool that is being dropped for reasons that are
>>> contrary to the commitment the vendors had agreed to make toward standards.
>>> By keeping explaining the market mechanisms you are not helping resolve the
>>> question on the legitimacy of this move, which is one of the core
>>> questions. Olaf is expressing his opinions on what he thinks is *right* or
>>> *wrong*, *ethical* or *illicit*
>>>
>>
>> There is no instance in telling whether it is right or wrong, ethical or
>> illecit keeping to the standards defined by the W3C specifications or not.
>> To get a higher, independent institution to take over the
>> standardization, you may initiate a petition.
>>
>> while you keep replying *why* that happens. We all know *why*, since a
>>> few thousand years back. If we always accepted the *why* as a fatality,
>>> humanity would have remained locked into one single paradigm. That is not
>>> exactly the spirit of democracy and progress.
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, in the end, it's up to the users who has the most influence.
>>>> Back in the days when Mozilla released the first versions of Firefox,
>>>> it was successful enough that it took more and more people away from
>>>> IE, so that in the end Microsoft could not push its proprietary
>>>> standards anymore and had to start opening up to keep to the standards
>>>> of others.
>>>>
>>>> So on the grounds of market share we are supposed to accept and justify
>>> it if Microsoft puts up its act again?
>>>
>>
>> Of course not. And Microsoft also wouldn't have a chance anymore if it
>> made its own thing again. Microsoft has to cooperate and keep with the
>> standards to stay competitive in the browser market.
>>
>> > 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.
>>>>
>>>> Well, Mozilla is still there as the only independent choice. But, of
>>>> course, it's hard for new vendors to get into this market and get
>>>> enough user base to have something to say regarding the standards.
>>>>
>>>> > 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.
>>>>
>>>> I claim removing the XLink syntax is a step forward regarding
>>>> simplicity
>>>
>>>
>>> Why should SVG be simple?
>>>
>>
>> Because a simple format is more likely to be accepted. Asked the other
>> way round. What would have been the benefit of keeping the XLink syntax?
>>
>>
>>> How could that be? Things can be simple or complex, their degree of
>>> difficulty is subject to the fluency of the executant. Would you think that
>>> removing one key from a sax will allow a non-musician to play a jazz solo?
>>>
>>
>> That comparison is incorrect. A better comparison would be that the key
>> of the sax is placed on a better reachable position, so it's easier to play
>> the instrument.
>>
>> Likewise, if anyone thinks that SVG becomes any simpler by not having to
>>> write xlink, he/she will be deceived.
>>>
>>> and acceptance of SVG.
>>>
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge SVG has been widely accepted, do you have
>>> different figures?
>>>
>>
>> I don't have numbers, but since SVG can be embedded into HTML now, it's
>> easier for authors to work with it. So, I'm sure this step made it wider
>> used as before.
>> Do you have any numbers?
>>
>>
>>> If not, why do you advance such an argument? Here too you are
>>> obfuscating the salient point in Olaf’s sentence. Are you doing this on
>>> purpose?
>>>
>>
>> Olaf claims that HTML5 is a "tag soup", which is an opinion, which is
>> definitely not shared by everyone. Also, he doesn't explain why he thinks
>> that allowing to embed SVG inside HTML is generally bad. Authors can still
>> decide against mixing SVG and HTML, if they want to keep a clear structure.
>>
>>
>>> SMIL is still supported in four of
>>>> the five main browsers. Google rescinded their removal of the SMIL
>>>> implementation.[1] Only Microsoft doesn't have plans to implement
>>>> it.[2] But in the long term it seems that, at least browser vendors,
>>>> rather want to switch over to CSS animations, which is a proper static
>>>> declaration equivalent. SVG fonts obviously didn't have much support
>>>> among implementors, but got replaced by WOFF, also an open standard.
>>>>
>>>> > Well and CSS - there are mainly only drafts, but vendors propagate
>>>> > nevertheless to authors already to use their prefixed own properties
>>>> and syntax
>>>>
>>>> (Browser) vendors moved away from prefixed properties years ago in
>>>> favor of preferences to avoid incompatibilities. They do not propagate
>>>> their prefixed own properties and syntax (anymore).
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would be difficult for a vendor to “propagate” a proprietary prefix
>>> (??). In any case, look well into CSS and JavaScript implementations.
>>>
>>
>> Could be that "propagate" is not the right word here. I'm not a native
>> English speaker. What I mean is that vendors now implement new experimental
>> features behind preferences instead of exposing them by default using a
>> prefix. Of course, there are still proprietary prefixed parts in CSS and
>> JavaScript, but they now cannot be removed anymore without breaking
>> websites, because vendors formerly made the mistake to expose them by
>> default.
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2017 04:05:20 UTC

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