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

Re: SVG's future

From: Domenico Strazzullo <strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:50:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CABgXer1XgvV759Von-LsY_-0a662w+=J7wNbXKXPw6j+jTMgQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@gmail.com>
Cc: グルチヤンラミン <ktecramin99@gmail.com>, Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, Francis Hemsher <fhemsher@gmail.com>
This discussion cannot end on an even faint suspicion that the users were
not showing interest. They have shown interest all along and it is insane
to expect them to do the same at every update of the spec. Therefore any
suggestion that the users should prove something or provide evidence is
absurd. It is not possible to recreate the type of initial thrust of 2000
on demand.


The responsibility remains 100% on the W3 and the implementers for not
honoring their engagements, independently if it was maliciously or not.


The users can only express their deception and frustration, and it’s
understandable that the great majority doesn’t even bother anymore.


Anyone who justifies or accepts the idea of proprietary features of the
vendors, it’s because they haven’t experienced the joy of coding for the
web in the early days, which is precisely the meaning of the efforts by the
W3 over the years to create standards.


The cause for this epilogue for SVG is Chris Lilley’s maniacal obsession
for CSS. Doug Schepers’ head rolling is not enough and not totally fair
because he was just an unaware bumper. Chris Lilley is the mastermind
behind this move. He must not get away with it, his head must roll, and
things must get straightened by those who have the prerogative to do it.


We do know there’s no way in this little parallel world (or no man’s land)
to confront the establishment with its responsibilities and/or liabilities.
It's only up to their sense of ethics, if they have any.




Independent implementation


Mozilla IS an independent open source implementer. Its intention to not
apply the new SVG2 spec is the origin of this discussion. With these
premises, to “Find someone with resources to create a second independent
implementation in a browser” is the perfect utopia.

Somehow Mozilla is contradicting its mission, and this may be a blow for
the open source concept altogether, not just for SVG. My opinion is that
Mozilla should go on with the implementation of SVG2 because failing to do
so could be suicidal for Firefox.

This is difficult to understand knowing that “Sponsored by KDDI, we've
succeeded to bring support for those new effects to firefox/Gecko”. Perhaps
at Mozilla too there are decision makers of a new kind.

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Nikos Andronikos <
nikos.andronikos@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:04 PM, グルチヤンラミン <ktecramin99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am wondering when people from svg will finally comment on this.
>> For sure there must be a 'need' for writing standards.
>>
>>
>
> I expect most don't watch this list too closely, since most spec
> discussion is on Github.
> Note I'm no longer an SVG WG member, but I'm not seeing very much activity
> since I've left. As far as I can tell, the W3C hasn't rechartered the SVG
> WG for 2017 yet.
>
> The browsers are the ones you need to be talking to, but they have already
> spoken.
> We solicited feedback on what features of SVG 2 they are likely to
> implement. The data is here:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLSSFG2sjaJ8V
> 8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Also, the browsers have not been very active on the SVG WG during 2016,
> which speaks to their priorities. In my opinion, It's not due to
> maliciousness, but resource constraints, but I'm not going to get into that
> side of this thread.
>
> To change their mind, you'll need to do the following:
> 1. Show a real need for these features - demonstrate use cases and get
> author feedback that they want this feature
> 2. Find someone with resources to create a second independent
> implementation in a browser
>
> To achieve (1), it seems the WICG (https://discourse.wicg.io/c/html/svg)
> is the preferred forum for discussion, though the SVG area is a ghost town.
> But to make your case there you will need supporters who want to see this
> implemented, so you will need to perform some kind of outreach to people
> who you think would use these vector-effects extensions.
>
> To achieve (2), if you get enough support at step (1), you may be able to
> lobby browsers to implement the vector-effects. Another option is to find a
> third party commercial organisation who could sponsor an implementation. An
> organisation like Igalia could be contracted to create the implementation
> after you have had confirmation that the browsers will accept the feature.
> However, if a pathway to get the feature in ALL browsers isn't identified,
> then even with a second implementation, the feature will never be a success.
>
> I know this all seems like a big backwards step after the work that has
> been put into SVG 2 already, but that's the reality of the situation. Mesh
> gradients would have been a game changer for SVG, but it seems they are
> never going to be implemented either.
>
> I wish you luck,
> Nikos.
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 12:50:54 UTC

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