Re: Regarding implementation of SVG2 vector effects

Hi all
As a newcomer I have to confess that I got embarrassed. about the
situation...
An independent reference implementation as Dr. Hoffman wrote would be nice,
probably hard to achieve, I guess...
Its also understandable that browser vendors have their own priorities, but
when all those works and frustrating
tests are done by volunteer work ....? Probably svgwg has to get actively
involved and escalate a request for support,
if there is really a need in vector graphic market. Any other idea is
welcome..


2017-02-03 1:10 GMT+09:00 Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>:

> Francis Hemsher:
>
> >I think web developers really like SVG. Many have no idea that 'SVG2 is
> >twice as nice as SVG1" (A banner for a revolt?) Question is...What
> leverage
> >would 50,000 web developers have to assure SVG2 does not languish is
> limbo?
> >Any thoughts?
>
> Most of the new and interesting features, it was agreed on to be required
> for
> SVG2, are removed now from the draft.
> What is left, might be called SVG 0.2 again ;o)
> Authors can completely forget about this 'SVG2'.
> It was wasted time.
>
> Specifications and recommendations should be written by independent people
> with
> some expertise in the related field, here vector graphics and not
> influenced by
> company lobbiests.
> Obviously there has to be an independent reference implementation (for free
> for everybody) and there have to be independent people and tests to check,
> whether implementations are somehow related to the spcification or not, if
> not
> fix bugs and gaps in implementations instead of changing specfications,
> that
> have no bugs (obviously they can have bugs to be fixed as well, but wrong
> or
> missing implementations are no indications for bugs in specifications).
>
> Without this, this desaster starting with HTML5 will continue, now SVG 2,
> CSS
> as well.
> These tag soup parsers, currently mainly in use, are completely borked -
> this
> is the core problem, resulting in people trying to adjust recommendations
> to
> borked software, without a care about what might be meaninfull for the
> task of
> a format.
>
> Maybe in a few years we need to put our information in stone again, because
> digital formats are finally completely borked, a failed approach.
> Respectively the approach to get standards from companies failed
> completely.
>
> If there is the impression, that digital communication is of any importance
> for mankind, format specifications needs to be moved to independent
> organisations (UNO? or organisations with expertise in this field like the
> usual metrological institutes like PTB).
>
>
> Olaf
>
>
>
>