W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2016

Re: Minutes, 8 December 2016 SVG WG telcon

From: Paul LeBeau <paul.lebeau@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 17:32:23 +1300
Message-ID: <CACfsppCxPVqr1hYLoTFnLFocAQYCNbeBZyc9+fn-agyHJw_=-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikos Andronikos <Nikos.Andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>
Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:07 UTC