Re: Regarding implementation of SVG2 vector effects

Under “normal” conditions the voice of 50,000 would have leverage, but in
an epoch of characterized corruption only Justice has effective leverage,
and this is no case for a judge. Even if you gather signatures for protest,
to whom do you present it? I don’t think the W3 is bound to any liabilities
in this scope. The specs are just recommendations, and, as we can witness,
they don’t mean much without general consensus from the implementers.


But give them the benefit of the doubt, if it’s not a case of corruption
they have a chance to clarify their position. Let’s not forget however that
the W3 is not doing anything illegal, in some contexts corruption is not
necessarily a criminal offence. The W3 groups are feature markets for
paying members. When any large member company agrees on some feature and
then changes its mind, that may lead to under the counter negotiations,
where the W3 might find itself in a delicate or unethical position in
regard to the stated missions.


Note that “large member company agrees on some feature and then changes its
mind” could read “the first one there who wakes up takes a decision” for an
agenda that writes itself erratically on a short term basis. How could they
care for something (SVG) they don’t relate to?


The W3 has never shown sensitivity to requests-protests-revolts in the past
on this matter, either by snubbing or by chocking with characteristic
political language.


I don’t think we are assisting to something in the making. We are
witnessing something that has already happened following a precise design.
The different deprecations and non-implementation of features resulted from
trading favors: 2009-2010 “You don’t implement SMIL, I sacrifice SVG
Fonts”. SMIL was a key factor, a major obstacle to the CSS takeover.
Microsoft would have obviously made an exemplary implementation of SMIL, if
they chose to. The ineptitude of the Chrome crowd with SMIL was probably a
terrific and unexpected bonus that allowed the coup de grâce for SVG.


However, it’s not certain that miserable intrigues can actually obliterate
a tool that is unequaled and universally adopted, that was able to arouse
long lasting interest and passion among academicians, engineers, and
artists. The attempt should probably fail. The motivation behind it is so
cheap.


In all cases I have the impression that the core of the problem on the
implementers side  is to be found in the direction that is being forced on
the web. Where there used to be a two face identity, that of a portable
platform comparable to the operating systems on one side, and that of the
best ever advertising vector on the other, it seems clear that the latter
prevailed completely, not much interest being shown any longer by the
decision makers for the former. The reason that is commonly invoked for
that shift is “public demand”, and to support that, the developers are fed
with new “new webs”. I’m all for progress, but not for relabeling frantic,
hysterical and confusional activity as progress.


In this post [https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Oct/0041.html]
I put forward a very clear question:


“Are you able, as an official spokesperson, to confirm that after its
demotion the removal of SVG is not in the W3C agenda?”


I was not expecting an answer of course, and in fact it didn’t come.
Between lying and telling the truth they seem to have chosen the third
option: attempting to classify the question as delusional argument by
abstaining.


In any event the fact that the W3 has not been fulfilling the mission
stated on the SVG chart is an evidence, and therefore the organization
should assess the responsibilities and take proper action by removing those
who are found responsible for this situation.


That’s the theory (there was a time when it was also the practice). In
reality it cannot happen if honesty is not there, and without that
requisite we are talking to the wind.


Domenico Strazzullo


On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:24 AM, グルチヤンラミン <ktecramin99@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>