W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2015

Re: Agenda, 1 October 2015 SVG WG telcon

From: Jelle Mulder <chubbymoth@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 23:55:35 +0800
To: 'Erik Dahlström' <erik@xn--dahlstrm-t4a.net>, 'www-svg' <www-svg@w3.org>, "David Dailey" <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
Cc: svg-developers@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <op.x5vyixbk6bezep@beauty>
Dear SVG workgroup members,

Please think of the children. My experience in teaching the subject of Web  
Design and using SVG for that is that they get SMIL and start getting  
blank faces when it comes to CSS and certainly javascript. SMIL is already  
quite a challenge, but the clear relation to what you add to your SVG file  
and what is happening on screen will enable them to overcome their issues.  
CSS to them is too abstract and javascript too arcane. I guess David has  
similar experiences, though my students used to be Design students rather  
than IT oriented.

Now that SVG fonts have been ripped out while solving a plethora of  
problems for large font sets, sprites, connectors, animations, on the fly  
translation of characters etc. as the diacritics problem couldn't be  
solved, but nothing really to replace that functionality but crude  
workarounds, please leave some of the old cruft alive and kicking.

Especially with many people starting to use their own CSS templates to get  
rid of all the visual BS, javascript getting disabled for various reasons,  
it may well be that SMIL is an acceptable alternative for many web users  
on both safety and usability issues. Not much you can do with SMIL that  
can bork a machine now is there?

The fact one can easily reuse SMIL content is a godsend for authors.  
Whether they are in advertisement agencies or some home working animator..  
The similarity of concepts between HTML, SVG and SMIL because they are  
based on the recently so hated XML makes it all quite understandable. It  
would be a crying shame if that is to be removed for the inability of some  
to get that point.

Regards,

Jelle


On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 22:08:08 +0800, David Dailey  
<ddailey@zoominternet.net> wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Dahlström [mailto:erik@dahlström.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 4:47 PM
> To: www-svg
> Subject: Agenda, 1 October 2015 SVG WG telcon
>
> Please find the agenda for this week’s telcon below.
>
> Time:
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=10&day=1&year=2015&hour=20&min=30&sec=0&p1=0
> Phone: +1-617-324-0000 (access code: 649 040 824) IRC for  
> minutes/discussion: #svg on irc.w3.org, port 6665 Agenda requests:  
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Agenda
> WebEx logistics: https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/WebEx
>
> Agenda:
>
> * Path stroking for paths that end with tight curves (Tav)
>    http://tavmjong.free.fr/blog/?p=1257
>
> * Declarative animation and conformance
>    https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/23
>
> * SVG 2 chapter progress
> -------------------
>
> I see from discussion following the meeting that one of the CSS agenda  
> items (css-writing-modes) was indeed addressed.
>
> I think the majority of authors who have developed content that is  
> consistent with SVG1.1 who fear that our industrial, scholarly and  
> artistic work is about to be deprecated with no workable functionality  
> to replace it, are more concerned perhaps, with the status of  
> https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/23 in particular the clarification  
> of what standards compliance means vis a vis declarative animation,  
> relationships to existing content, the parts of SVG DOM (as with animVal  
> vs baseVal) and methods to pass events back and forth between  
> declarative and scripted methods (onend, onbegin, beginElement(), etc.).
>
> When one writer on the github discussion writes
>
> "If there is / will be consensus in the SVG WG that both script  
> animation and declarative animation (incl SVG's animation elements)  
> should be required for dynamic SVG viewers (I think both should be  
> required for eg browsers), then the wording (eg in the SVG2 spec) should  
> be updated to unambiguously state that.
>
> Many developers want/need SVG SMIL / SVG's animation elements. If there  
> is / will be consensus in the SVG WG that both script animation and  
> declarative animation (incl SVG's animation elements) should be required  
> for dynamic SVG viewers (I think both should be required for eg  
> browsers), then the wording (eg in the SVG2 spec) should be updated to  
> unambiguously state that.
>
> Many developers want/need SVG SMIL / SVG's animation elements."
>
> I think many who work in at least a dozen different sectors of world  
> economy would concur. Human communication is far too large an issue to  
> be left in the hands of a few narrow economic interests.
>
> Was that issue discussed? Was consensus found?
>
> Regards
> David
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 5 October 2015 08:49:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:03 UTC