- From: Paul LeBeau <paul.lebeau@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 17:32:23 +1300
- To: Nikos Andronikos <Nikos.Andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACfsppCxPVqr1hYLoTFnLFocAQYCNbeBZyc9+fn-agyHJw_=-w@mail.gmail.com>
Well that makes for depressing reading. :( What would be the best way to get the vendors interested in implementing SVG 2 features? Is it at the point where it is going to be up to motivated third parties to submit patches? Would they become more interested if an SVG 2 polyfill resulted in lots of content being produced? Paul On 9 December 2016 at 13:20, Nikos Andronikos < Nikos.Andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au> wrote: > https://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-svg-minutes.html > > [1]W3C > > [1] http://www.w3.org/ > > - DRAFT - > > SVG Working Group Teleconference > > 08 Dec 2016 > > [2]Agenda > > [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Dec/0002.html > > See also: [3]IRC log > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-svg-irc > > Attendees > > Present > nikos, stakagi, AmeliaBR, Tav, shepazu > > Regrets > Chair > Nikos > > Scribe > nikos > > Contents > > * [4]Topics > 1. [5]SVG 2 feature feedback > * [6]Summary of Action Items > * [7]Summary of Resolutions > __________________________________________________________ > > <scribe> scribe: nikos > > SVG 2 feature feedback > > [8]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLSS > FG2sjaJ8V8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/edit?usp=sharing > > [8] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ > 1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLSSFG2sjaJ8V8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/edit?usp=sharing > > nikos: We have feedback from MS, Google, and FireFox > ... it's not very promising. Lots of 'don't support' > ... I would like to get some context - is this we won't ever > support, or we don't have time to work in the next year > > Tav: I think I'm going to end my involvement. This is basically > nothing > ... InkScape will probably move away from SVG too > > shepazu: Just because Microsoft won't implement things, doesn't > mean we won't get other implementations > > AmeliaBR: As you said Nikos, we need to get clarification if > this is just this year or ever > ... certainly not supporting text in shape is rather strange > when some browsers already support shape-text in css > > shepazu: not supporting text-orientation? That's weird > > AmeliaBR: that's already been fully implemented in places > > Tav: yeah I guess it should be clarified. But this basically > says SVG 2 is dead as far as I can tell > ... there's really almost nothing in here > > AmeliaBR: it looks like they've gone through and marked what > they are actually working on > ... I think text-transform is already supported in all browsers > and has been marked as a X > > nikos: Seems like next stage is to have a discussion with the > people who gave feedback > > AmeliaBR: The problem we have is the people who are > representatives are not the people who use or implement SVG > ... we see it on GitHub where the people filing issues are not > the people who are representatives > > <stakagi> We are now developing to implement the implementation > of vector-effect and embedded content to firefox. > > AmeliaBR: having people who are graphically involved with the > authoring process is important for understanding the pain > points, etc > ... it needs to be said, without browser support for advanced > SVG. Is the SVG spec naturally going to fork? Is there still a > desire for an open format for vector graphics? > ... if you can't use those vector graphics in web sites? > ... We would basically need specialised graphics software - > Adobe and possibly others, to get involved > ... is there support for going ahead with standardisation of a > version of SVG with advanced graphical features? > ... and is there enough support in the W3C to continue that? > ... or is SVG as an advanced graphics language dead? And all > that is useful at this point is to standardise it as it is > currently supported in web browsers > ... and clean up cross browser incompatibilities without adding > new features > > nikos: My feeling is that you would be looking at a different > set of W3C members to support SVG as a general open format for > vectors > > Tav: I had an interesting discussion with someone - was talking > about a mesh gradient poly fill in Canvas. He noted that Canvas > has great support and could see where SVG is hitting a wall > > shepazu: The browsers have for a long time wanted to reduce > features and optimise for polyfills and script implementation > of features > ... their attitude towards SVG seems to reflect taht > ... I heard discussions about this at TPAC. They were oblivious > to the fact that without script none of these features work > ... and all these features using script reduces performance > client side > ... and the fidelity and ability of the language > ... I'm very disappointed by these results > ... To be frank, I don't think they're thinking very deeply > about the problems on the web. Developers rather than browsers > are leading the way > > nikos: The things the browser vedors seem to want to work on > are based on what the engineers want and the code they know > well and that's pretty sad > > Tav: In terms of manpower. Where are we? We have two people > leaving at the end of the year. > > shepazu: W3C will put a staff contact on if there's interest > from the browsers in getting the cleaned up version of SVG 2 > completed > > nikos: I'd be willing to put in my own time if there's interest > in new features and not just butchering the spec. There's > little motivation for me to do that. > > AmeliaBR: what I expect would happen is move SVG under CSSWG > and the spec will be a tiny fraction of what we've been working > on > > shepazu: I'm not totally pessimistic. Think there's a chance > for some CSS related features to be pushed forward. > > nikos: Ok so let's talk about what our plan is now > > shepazu: Tav has made it pretty clear what his plan is > > Tav: I will definitely go ahead and do SVG 2 text - the way I > wrote it there's SVG 1.1 fallback > ... so that will get done and will replace SVG 1.2 text > ... mesh gradients are going to be released > > nikos: Good. I think InkScape totally following the SVG spec is > unnecessary. It should push ahead > > Tav: It will - carefully > > shepazu: If things are to move to incubation. There's a > possibility of doing some stuff in an incubator group > ... maybe it's time for developers to look at it from a > polyfill perspective and take control of SVG, because the > browsers don't seem to be leading on it > > <stakagi> +1 > > Tav: I had problems with mesh gradients because there's no way > to embed a canvs in an svg shape > > shepazu: Think we could get traction with that because that's > the direction they want to go in > > Tav: I came across bugs in Chrome and Firefox that blocked me > ... haven't documented them yet - was going to bring them up > with the group > > shepazu: When you get the chance, you should file some bugs > > nikos: Houdini custom paint is promising. I have a feeling it > may not be powerful enough for that sort of pixel bashing. > ... It's something we should have a go at so we can provide > feedback > > Tav: I can provide some topics for next week if we want to talk > about this > > nikos: Ok. It's worth documenting them > ... Let's call the meeting there > > RRSAgent: make minutes > > Summary of Action Items > > Summary of Resolutions > > [End of minutes] > > The information contained in this email message and any attachments may be > confidential and may also be the subject to legal professional privilege. > If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, > disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. If > you have received this email in error, please immediately advise the sender > by return email and delete the information from your system. > >
Received on Friday, 9 December 2016 04:33:18 UTC