Re: SVG Fonts [...]

Patrick Dengler:
....
>
> Funny question ;o)
> Do you know ad hoc within a minute for example hundred different web
> projects using the invalid notation from microsoft for the filter property
> (I mean not correct usage as defined in SVG, but the 'definition'
> that is available somewhere on a webpage of microsoft ;o)?
>
> >>> Yes, we have that data.
>
> Do you know ad hoc within a minute hundred web-pages using the
> microsoft interpretation of SMIL+HTML?
>
> >> Yes we have that data as well.
>

Well I see, then of course I obviously have lists of hundreds of
authors already using all features of SVG 1.1, but do not publish
them, until a reliable presentation is possible in the usual viewers 
or some other hundreds want to use SVG 1.1 and a similar amount 
of authors want to use SVG tiny 1.2 as soon as this is widely implemented.

Unfortunately I have not the time to ask them for a permission
to distribute all their names ;o) 
You just have to believe ...

Many want to have independent tests (not just those from the
point of view of implementors, just because they often see
different problems than those, that really occur for authors) to
know, what already works, just to see when they can start to
create and publish SVG documents.
Fortunately I already have a lot of independent tests ;o)

> Even if not - I think, at least SMIL+XHTML would be great to
> have for many authors, if that would be available with the usual
> browsers. Not sure about the invalid filter usage, however ;o)
>
> > This same issue goes back to other features such as animations for
> > example.
>
> At least I have on my own PHP scripts creating practically an infinite
> number of different non-trivial/non-testing SVG outputs including
> animation. These are hundreds of scripts in my art gallery, just produced
> by me within the last 6 years, creating an almost infinite output - does
> this count as something similar to 100 web pages?
>
> >>> Nope :(  I love the fact that you contribute a lot, don't get me wrong.
> >>>  But, as in your examples, just because HTML + Time (SMIL) was a
> >>> standard, doesn't mean that people want to use.
>

I think, many would have wanted. 
Unfortunately other companies and organisations have only less
capacities than microsoft, therefore XHTML+SMIL or timesheets
is still not available.

Just in these days there is again a questions about this in the 
www-smil list.

I think many people are just wainting, that XHTML+SMIL is
available in MSIE and in other browsers to start to explore this.
Maybe there is not much interest in HTML+SMIL, just because
HTML4 is not extensible ;o)

The same applies for many SVG features - people are still waiting - see
the SVG contest Doug mentioned today ;o)
And this is really fun, because there is the idea to use the role attribute
as available currently only in SVG tiny 1.2. Well, Opera has some 
interpretation of SVG tiny 1.2 already, but there is no reaction related
to role. Other mentioned viewers do not interprete new features from
SVG tiny 1.2 at all. The mentioned google chrome does not even
display any standalone SVG documents - nice contest for waiting ;o)

As soon as available and the quality of viewers is good enough,
many authors will discover this and make use of it.
Until this almost nothing will happen and the fantasy is basically
blocked by the impression, that it is not practically implemented
widely what is already specified for a long time.

Before HTTP+HTML was invented, just a clever minority used
internet. Just because HTTP works properly and HTML was at least
implemented in a noticable amount, many people started to use it.
There were obviously no HTML documents in 1980 and not many
in 1990. However, today we have a lot of them, with my counting
method practically an infinite amount as well as if have for SVG.

HTML at the same time shows, how corrupted and complex 
the situation gets with implementations beeing incomplete over
many years. 

In both aspects we can learn a lot from the HTML phenomena.
Similar applies for CSS.
Many authors did not start to use it before it is known to get
a somehow useful presentation for the broad public.
Authors corrupt the format, if implementations are squalid.

Olaf

Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 08:56:52 UTC