Re: new feature request

Stephen Chenney:

>SVG really does have a chicken and egg problem here, due to its perceived
>importance to the general web community. Step zero, I think, is to get as
>many people as possible using SVG on their sites. Many things would become
>easier with a larger developer community. 

The chicken and egg problem is even worse:
There are SVG recommendations now for about 15 years 
(and not much change between 1.0 and 1.1).
But due to the low implementation quality of viewers/browsers, obviously most
authors will not use SVG for serious applications, because the presentation
is not reliable and vendors do not care much about what is required in
the recommendations.
And even worse, it is not even predictable, that things will work in the
future, which worked in viewers of the past, some examples are SVG fonts,
animateColor, declarative interactivity.
Currently the impression is, that current viewers/browsers fail and
SVG 2 is adjusted to this under the influence of these vendors.
The result is, that some amount of content of the past will not
work in the future due to intended backward incompatibilities and
several issues possible with SVG 1.1 or SVG tiny 1.2 will never work. 
This means in pactice, that authors feel to be set up by 
SVG recommendations and browser interpretation.
Obviously someone will never use such a format for serious
applications, if it is so unpredictable due to now depreciated,
but already long working features and arbitrary backwards 
incompatible changes. Typically authors are not much motivated
to look every year, if current versions of viewers are still able to
present their old works properly ;o)
(and of course, there can be a lot of content out of control for
authors, that will never be checked again, because it worked
and is already published.)

Of course, some of these things happen due to misunderstandings,
for example some people simply do not understand, that CSS is
only for decoration, therefore CSS animation or script animation 
is of almost no relevance for serious SVG content - and in
practice there is no real meaningful usecase for CSS animation
or CSS transforms for (X)HTML content at all, therefore not
obvious, why to care about this at all instead of caring about
some meaningful implementation progress concerning SVG 1.1,
SVG tiny 1.2 and maybe caring about defining some really new
and useful and exciting features for SVG 2 instead of mainly
noting/hiding browser bugs and gaps with backwards incompatible
changes in this version.
 
If nobody wants to implement SVG 1.1 properly, there is no need
for SVG 2.

Olaf

Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 18:09:03 UTC