W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > February 2017

SVG's future (Re: Regarding implementation of SVG2 vector effects)

From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:28:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAERejNZfMLL8hNd614B_AH-zaDJz8zzJCFQZ-vnSA5EzExX0DQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, fhemsher@gmail.com, strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com, ktecramin99@gmail.com
On 2 February 2017 at 17:10, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.

The authors should identify why there is no strong interest in
implementing SVG 2's features.

> 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).

Having a reference implementation sounds like a good idea, two notes
on this, though.
First, there are already independent implementations like Cairo (which
is e.g. used by Mozilla). Unfortunately, there is no reference
implementation including all SVG 2 features.
Second, I'd claim the company lobbyist authors are the experts in the
area of vector graphics in their companies and having them as authors
shows their interest in creating the standard. In other words, it
makes sense to have the implementers being involved in the
standardization process. And it's good that implementers talk to each
other to create standards instead of everyone doing their own thing.

> 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.

"disaster" and "borked" are strong expressions and it's easy to claim
that without proving that it can be done better. HTML, SVG, CSS and
their implementations may not be perfect, but they are far from being
a "disaster" or being "borked". The standards evolve like
implementations evolve.

> 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).

If no one is interested in implementing those format specifications,
it doesn't matter whether they are created by the implementors or an
independent organization.

As I stated earlier, it is important to get to know why there's a lack
of interest in implementing the SVG 2 standard and users need to
express their need for those features.

Received on Friday, 3 February 2017 08:29:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:08 UTC