Re: SVG's future

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Tab Atkins Jr.:
>>
>> ...
>> > > [snip quite a lot]
>> >
>>
>> ...
>> >  Stop this now.
>> >
>> > ~TJ
>>
>> yet another unproductive attempt to keep someone's trap shut about
>> nonsense at
>> W3C?
>>
>
>
Rick Cabanier,

Are you for real?

Your statement:


> No, Tab is right. This WAS an uninformed rant.
>

Thank you for the peremptory judgment. In the meantime you may wish to see
exactly what rant means and compare with the contents of the thread, I’m
afraid it ranks a little higher, sorry.  By the way, you say it WAS. What
makes you think it’s finished?


>
> Insulting people's work,
>

I, we, are defending peoples’ work, that of the contributors to the
specification(s). We are demanding that it should be honored, as per
agreements and understandings. The W3C is insulting it, with the serious
aggravation of failing to acknowledge the facts and failing to officially
take its responsibilities. You are lying, or misinformed.


> conspiracy theories
>

To the best of my knowledge, nobody, nowhere in this discussion has ever
used, nor suggested the word “conspiracy”. The factual fate of the SVG 2
specification, and in a broader sense, the future of SVG, are being
discussed. Accounts for the happening have been solicited. Solutions are
being sought. You are lying, or misinformed, or you don’t read carefully,
not more than you write carefully.


> and ad hominem
>

You need to check well what this expression means before you can use it.
You are very precisely doing an ad hominem attack by attacking the person
rather than the argument. My protest contains both –as it should be– very
extensive argumentation, and the target objects or persons deemed
responsible. The assessment of responsibilities only engages myself, free
of others to subscribe or not. You are lying, or misinformed.


> attacks are counter-productive and lowers morale.
>

This you cannot prove. History proves that attacks had a fair share of both
productivity and counter-productivity. You are lying, or misinformed.


> Getting standards done requires the exact opposite of this approach.
>

Let me help you get this clarified in your head. Standards did get done
already, you’re kind of late on this one. And the “opposite” approach to
which you refer was the correct one at that time, but that you criticize
later in your comment. You are lying, or misinformed.


>
>
>> Why, if we know already, that SVG 2 is dead and several other activities
>> of
>> the W3C like semantic web, separation of content and decoration, are
>> borked
>> now for years?
>>
>
> Only a few vocal people are insisting on "perfect" academic solutions;
>

Where did you see anyone insisting on "perfect" academic solutions? How
considerate is it to qualify those who are trying hard to reclaim
legitimate rights for the greatest number as “few vocal people”? You do you
think you are? You are lying, or misinformed.


> most authors are quite happy to live in the messy but forgiving world that
> is the web today. Browser vendor's priorities reflect this.
>

I’m sorry, but this kind of argument is so superficial, even flirting with
stupidity (please don’t take it personally. It’s the argument, not you.
That can happen to anyone). How is the peremptory mode appropriate for this
kind of sentence? In any case the response that you got by Boris Dalstein
is revelatory. You could capitalize on that and perhaps take your arrogance
down a step or two.


>
>
>> No own suggestions/ideas, what to do to get SVG implementations complete?
>> I think, there are meanwhile millions of authors with a lot of content
>> around,
>> much interested in complete implementations, without a need to worry about
>> different bugs and caps in different common user-agents, surely a lot of
>> them
>> interested as well in a new version of SVG with new features, simplifying
>> their work or even allowing new types of images
>>
>
> SVG is more successful today than it's ever been. Maybe those incomplete
> features weren't needed in the first place?
>

This is a thorny question. Consolidation of SVG 1.1, complete, should have
been paramount. But actuality is now different.


> I believe that the future of SVG does not consist of new graphical
> features but of a deeper integration with the rest of the platform as well
> as offer more consistency. (ie common matrices, CORS/CSP, CSS)
> That can be done outside of SVG and AFAIK is still moving ahead.
>
>

Well that makes it. We do understand that you adhere to the group/entities
at the origin of this situation, although you cannot take the
responsibility for it because, if I’m not wrong, you are a participant of
the WG, not a member of the W3C staff, correct? You are only explaining the
mechanism of the move (it has already been done), not its legitimacy. By
the way, I can see now why you mentioned “conspiracy”. You did, we didn’t.
Do you feel you were part of a conspiracy? Do you feel that a group of
informed people/entities took decisions affecting the population based on
sectarian beliefs?


I’m very impressed by your fluency with technical words: common matrices,
CORS/CSP, CSS. Wow! Man, you really are an informed insider. Please accept
the expression of my admiration. Too bad for graphical features, who cares.
I humbly accept that you see the light and we don’t, I’m totally convinced
of the well-founded of your, how did you call it, “conspiracy”? I change my
camp, I’m with you now.


Domenico Strazzullo