- From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 06:27:45 EST
- To: ian@hixie.ch, www-svg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <11.3984b726.2edc61b1@aol.com>
In a message dated 11/29/2004 10:16:27 AM GMT Standard Time, ian@hixie.ch writes: > > >the browser vendors did not care about SVG 1.0 when it was released, > >when it was simpler than SVG 1.2. Suddenly, they complain that it might > >get too complex. 4 years after SVG 1.0 was released. > > To be honest, four years ago SVG wasn't even on our radars. What lesson do you draw from that about the far sightedness (or otherwise) of your radar? > Personally I was at University involved with two of those projects, and I > can tell > you that vector graphics were the furthest thought from my mind as far as > the Web went. The thinking of others was a little less narrow. > >I would be perfectly happy if the browser vendors would provide a full, > >clean implementation of SVG 1.0/1.1 and for now leave SVG 1.2 to more > >specialized SVG UAs, such as ASV/Batik or others. > > The problem is that whatever we implement, our customers will demand that > we do everything that the W3C has stamped. > Is this a fundamental reason for your assorted objections to SVG 1.2? That you (corporately) don't have the vision or resources to implement what the market wants? > > >As to the complexity of vector effects: yes, they might not be trivial to > >implement, but they are certainly doable. > > Everything is doable. See my .sig. That isn't really the point. We have to > implement a bazillion specs and we have to do so in a tiny amount of space > with a finite number of engineering and testing resources. It simply isn't > feasible nor desirable to support redundant or rarely-used features. Isn't there a circularity of argument here? You don't support it, so it's rarely used, so because it's (in your perception) rarely used, you shouldn't support it? > > > >And there are tons of graphics applications out there that do implement > >them. Or do you know any serious vector graphics application out there > >that does not implement union/intersect/path offset, etc? > > But my point is a Web browser isn't, and shouldn't be, a "serious vector > graphics application". Why? Isn't that statement also indicative of a narrowness of view? Should the Web browser (or Web client, if you want a less narrow term) be permanently fossilised because of that? > > >If you want, you could also do a poll on the svg developers list and > >would find out that a lot of people on this list would have a use case > >for one or more features of the vector effects proposal. > > That's a self-selected group, and is not representative of the people that > Web browsers would be targetting in so far as vector graphics are > concerned. Perhaps I am the only one who sees more than a little irony here with the reference to self-selected groups. It _is_ an important group, of course, but for most users, > their primary contact with vector graphics is sites like: > > http://badgerbadgerbadger.com/ Fifteen years ago, for most users, there was no perceived need for a Web browser. Where would your line of thought have taken us (or failed to take us) over the last 15 years? > > ...and I don't see anything in the graphics of that animation that > requires more than <path> and animation features. Has it not occurred to you that there are uses for vector graphics that go beyond the needs of cartoons? > > Currently the difference between SVG1.2 and the vector graphics language > that Web UA manufacturers would like to implement is roughly the same as > the difference between Docbook and HTML, IMHO. DocBook serves a very > important role in specialist environments (and there are a lot of those > environments), but at the end of the day, HTML is good enough for the > Web's document needs. (It leaves something to be desired when it comes to > apaplications, but that wasn't what it was designed for.) > Yes, HTML (Horse-and-buggy Text Markup Language?) served and continues to serve frequent basic needs. It seems to me that you are expressing a surprisingly narrow and unimaginative view of what a Web browser/Web client can be. I wonder, do you see any similarities between your viewpoint and those who opposed the introduction of any other significant new technology? Andrew Watt
Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 11:28:22 UTC