W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > January 2013

RE: SVG 2 Features and Approach

From: Robert Longson <longsonr@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 22:31:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOu7Uv6kFya3DdOPpfYwB4MC-gCnoAvtXnJLQfv9+d+cZ0Aznw@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-svg@w3.org

> Well, those browsers happen to be wrong. It is not for the tail to wag the dog. The spec really should follow wisdom rather than caprice. There will be sound reasons to complain if SVG agrees to take a backward step in functionality and cogency of design. Because some individual at Mozilla decides he or she doesn't like SVG fonts is not exactly a groundswell of rationale for exclusion from a standard. Certain browsers are just not standards-compliant. It has always been this way with SVG. Should we remove SMIL animation because Microsoft says they don't like it. Should we remove text support because Firefox has a poor implementation of the 1.1 standard? Just allow some browsers to fail certain tests as they always have. Unless you want to be like HTML5 and remove things from the test suite so that all browsers are 100 percent compliant? Why not just roll back SVG to a least common denominator (that which all browsers support) and scrap initiatives to improve it.

You're biased because you (and I) happen quite by accident to be able
to write in a language that SVG fonts supports. Do try writing
something in Devangari or even Hindi with SVG fonts and you'll soonj
realise it's not the panacea you suppose.

> Emoji in full color with animation will be rolled out in SVG format soon, and Apple learned that one can't sell i-phones in Japan without emoji.

Firefox and Safari both support emoji and neither uses SVG fonts to do so.

Best regards

Received on Monday, 7 January 2013 22:32:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:40 UTC