- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:32:09 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
* Ian Hickson wrote: >Please drop the entire spec and work on a decent test suite for SVG 1.1 >first. SVG 1.1 interoperability is very poor. There are entire areas of >SVG 1.1 where there is so little interoperability that it is beyond me how >SVG 1.1 managed to exit the CR stage. I do not think that interoperability of the existing feature set should be the only concern of the Working Group. If there are ever going to be new or re-designed features in SVG, it is also important that creating these is not left to implementers but that these are developed in a way that maximizes the consensus around them as that would help to improve the quality of the design, to sort out possible intellectual property issues, and (thus) enable interoperability. It is not going to help SVG interoperability much if implementers come up with incompatible, competing SVG extensions and it seems foolish to think that implementers wait a years for the SVG Working Group to meet their customer's demands. Further, SVG is not a monopoly in its domain, there are competing technologies and not responding to market demands risks that vendors and content providers choose different technologies possibly rendering the Working Group's efforts on SVG 1.1 interoperability irrelevant and most certainly hindering SVG's adoption, neither of which seems desirable to me. I would appreciate if you could make a proposal on how the SVG WG should proceed while mitigating these risks. If your point is that people are wrong in wanting most of these new features, I would also appreciate if you could propose viable alternate solutions that these people should want instead.
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 18:32:51 UTC