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

Re: SVG's future

From: Domenico Strazzullo <strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:15:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CABgXer2ezgstWBWQ8an1v1HqABnzbz5JUhKcesyfeJQL31DQcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Schepers <standards@schepers.cc>
Cc: Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@gmail.com>, 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>
Fishing needs patience. How did I know you couldn’t help replying at some
point? I just did.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Doug Schepers <standards@schepers.cc>
wrote:

> There is so much wrong thinking here, I won't bother to address most of
> it. Suffice it to say that this post has little insight into the
> complexities of the implementation landscape, nor the motivation of the
> implementers or of W3C.


Sure, we are blind and deaf. You were completely entangled with politics
there, you could never make any sense out of it, you failed miserably, and
now you tell us we don’t know. How’s that.

The situation results from the lack of coordination and proper exercise of
authority. By paying, the members of the W3 implicitly accept its
authority, even if that weren’t explicitly expressed. I know, you said more
than once that you’re not into legalities, and perhaps that was a problem,
perhaps it was just a game for you, and perhaps that is what made it so
easy to get manipulated.


> I'm shaking my head in wonder that such assertions can be made so
> confidently and forcefully with no evidence or rationale behind them, and
> I'm at a loss to understand why someone would do so.
>

If you don’t get the rationale it means you read superficially. Someone
would do so because someone holds someone else accountable for some
particular event. Still at a loss?

Since I’m not your layer nor your confessor I will bypass the rules of
confidentiality. In 2009 (or early 2010, I will need to check) I warned you
privately against the predominant CSS strategy in relation to SVG, and you
replied “I know, but it’s too late now, the train is on its way”. Need
other evidence? The archives are still public. In any case, the actual
state of facts is the only needed evidence.


>
> The claims that the problem was "Chris Lilley’s maniacal obsession for
> CSS" or that "Chris Lilley is the mastermind behind this move" are absurd,
> baseless, and irresponsible, and should be retracted. (In fact, while Chris
> is a competent contributor to the CSS WG, his real passions these days lie
> with fonts, colors, and audio, and he has no motivation to want SVG to
> suffer.)
>

I won’t take your word for it, and I will keep my position. Also, you are
using the present tense. Perhaps in the past, in his obtuse stubbornness,
Chris may not have been totally aware of how much SVG would “suffer”, not
considering his actions as misdoings. But even so, that would be no
justification. When you are in charge you are responsible for the
consequences of your decisions and actions. In any case I don’t buy the
innocent choirboy image. There’s history out there, you guys can’t fool
everybody. But perhaps you and Chris are really candid? I give you the
benefit of the doubt (which I already did in this thread, but there again,
like you can only hear what you like to hear, it seems you also can only
read what you like to read).


>
>
> The answer to motivating the browser makers to implement SVG is to
> demonstrate concrete uses (not use cases, but actually real-world uses) in
> which features of SVG 2 are solving real problems in production software.
> This means putting it in a polyfill (or putting it into an open-source
> browser), and promoting its use.
>
> From a standardization perspective, the evidence of interest the
> implementers would like to see are pull requests on Github, test suite
> contributions, and other measurable activity, not really mailing list
> comments (especially not ones that veer off into philosophy or
> recrimination).
>

Those are your opinions, shared by others, and based on your opinions your
efforts did not produce the expected results. These proposals are like a
U-turn to then try to go back to the future. This is so simplistic, it’s
hard to believe. It seems like you didn’t learn from your experience. It
cannot possibly happen after the think-tanks were removed and production
agents chased away (and many humiliated). Whom should we thank for that?


In any case, after years of SVG2 specification making, as per agreements
and engagements for which the W3, behind Chris and yourself, was the
herald, we need to pull a request now? What did you do then all this time?


Companies adopt philosophies. To try to frame them is key in understanding
the motivation behind their actions, why they happen, not what could
eventually happen if someone polyfills. The making and changes of things
are determined by choices, in turn dictated by philosophies, not by
polyfills. It’s not forbidden to try to evolve and get some decent insight.


The vendors know perfectly well what SVG 1 and 2 stand for, they don’t need
to be fed examples with a spoon. Am I dreaming?


Recrimination is a necessary manifestation after sour outcomes. It’s
intended to force those who have the responsibilities for failures, to take
them. Its purpose is to makes a case. It’s obvious that recrimination is
not comfortable for those concerned.


To refresh your memory, at the time when Adobe was entertaining doubts and
incertitude about the future of their plug-in (ASV) and therefore the
future of SVG, it was remaining insensitive to the pleas of all those who
were investing in research, experiments, and production. Now, only after I
published a very virulent letter, where in particular I was accusing them
of hijacking us to nurse their baby while they would comfortably decide
what was best for them, one person from Adobe (was it Leonard?) finally
stated in response that Adobe did not intend to support ASV any longer.
Though he addressed me personally, it was obviously a public announcement.
That letter did what use cases, tests, diplomatic commercial approaches,
this and that, did not do: force Adobe to understand that it was not decent
to try to entertain any further their political “flou artistique”. At that
point Adobe estimated (forced) that their behavior was on the border of
ethics, or more precisely already over the border. The other approaches
also mattered of course, but the upfront attack made their position
unsustainable. For the record, the whole sequence is on SVG-developers.

This means that you failed to learn when you had a chance, or that you
forgot, the importance of philosophy (recall that ethics is one its
branches) and recrimination. Now if you say that Google at this stage is
totally insensitive to any of this crap, I buy that. But if you say the
same for Microsoft, no way, you’ve got it wrong.


>
> If you want SVG 2 to move forward, stop complaining, and start
> contributing.


As you said several times, you don’t understand my English. Perhaps if you
try harder, I wrote:


“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.”

Your vocabulary and argumentations are not enough to defend the
indefensible.


> Standards are made by those who show up.
>

You kept listening to people who showed up with inane proposals. You were
warned regularly, but you always dismissed anything that you don’t like to
hear. You are not in the position to give lessons now.


>
>
> p.s. I have no interest in debating this or other topics on this mailing
> list or off-list. I'm offering this one-off comment, from my own
> perspective as someone who had a few years of an inside view, in case
> someone was taking the poster's comments too seriously. I'm happy to have a
> friendly off-list chat with anyone who'd like to know how they could
> productively help.
>
>
> Regards–
> Doug Schepers, Unaware Bumper At Large


The inside view of a politician! Unfortunately we are well aware of those
inside views. Yes, we do take comments seriously and, no, you are not in
the position to teach how to productively help.

You managed to chase out anyone that you could not control, most of the
intellectual force. The whole thing that you strived to (sub) lead ended up
in total waste, in spite of multiple friendly warnings that you received
(we do too have off-list conversations). Now that is what you are, like in
your signature, an Unaware Bumper At Large.

Domenico Strazzullo



>
>
>
> On 2/9/17 7:50 AM, Domenico Strazzullo wrote:
>
>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLSS
>> FG2sjaJ8V8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/edit?usp=sharing
>>     <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLS
>> SFG2sjaJ8V8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/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
>>     <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 Friday, 10 February 2017 14:15:54 UTC

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