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

Re: SVG's future

From: Domenico Strazzullo <strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 14:26:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CABgXer3Lyky0kYsdk4d7nrfxH1U=xSQaGrOW2EDVtWU8Cox8LA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Cc: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, Francis Hemsher <fhemsher@gmail.com>, グルチヤンラミン <ktecramin99@gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Sebastian Zartner <
sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3 February 2017 at 12:07, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> >  Sebastian Zartner:
> >
> >>
> >> The authors should identify why there is no strong interest in
> >> implementing SVG 2's features.
> >>
> > ...
> >
> >
> > My impression was, that for example Opera gave up Presto (with the
> currently
> > still best SVG implemention, including parts of SVG tiny 1.2 - here we
> have
> > already the mentioned vector effects defined and in SVG tiny 1.2 viewers
> > implemented as far as defined), because they had no money anymore and
> > not enough users for their commercial products.
> > This was not related to SVG itself, but maybe it was related, they tried
> to
> > follow standards, but other vendors had more success with proprietary
> stuff and
> > control of their customers ;-)
> Sure, companies live from their customers. And it's the decision of
> the customers which products they use.
> I have the impression you are trying to imply that the eventual removal of
SVG should be simply considered, and accepted as, a fatality. SVG is not a
product, and its users are users, not customers. SVG is an open source
specification, and we don’t need to reiterate here the advantages of open
standards vs proprietary, nor their very reason of existence, which you
seem to put back in question with expired argumentation.

> Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google,  Adobe, Amazon etc obviously
> prefer
> > their own products and formats to ensure, that they can control and abase
> > their customers and addicted people, therefore it is natural to
> undermine and
> > erode independent standards.
> It's clear that the big players have the most influence on the
> standards. But, as said above, it's up to the users which products to
> use.

Not quite so. The users, as consumers, use what is proposed to them. But
not even that! The question here is not what is proposed to them, it is
about a widely adopted tool that is being dropped for reasons that are
contrary to the commitment the vendors had agreed to make toward standards.
By keeping explaining the market mechanisms you are not helping resolve the
question on the legitimacy of this move, which is one of the core
questions. Olaf is expressing his opinions on what he thinks is *right* or
*wrong*, *ethical* or *illicit*, while you keep replying *why* that
happens. We all know *why*, since a few thousand years back. If we always
accepted the *why* as a fatality, humanity would have remained locked into
one single paradigm. That is not exactly the spirit of democracy and

> So, in the end, it's up to the users who has the most influence.
> Back in the days when Mozilla released the first versions of Firefox,
> it was successful enough that it took more and more people away from
> IE, so that in the end Microsoft could not push its proprietary
> standards anymore and had to start opening up to keep to the standards
> of others.
> So on the grounds of market share we are supposed to accept and justify it
if Microsoft puts up its act again?

> > The HTML5 tag soup specification instead of only defining a simple new
> > variant with a thought out concept to markup text in a semantic way is a
> good
> > example, intentionally it is designed so complex, that new vendors are
> > frustrated to attack the oligopoly with an independent new and own
> viewer.
> Well, Mozilla is still there as the only independent choice. But, of
> course, it's hard for new vendors to get into this market and get
> enough user base to have something to say regarding the standards.
> > Trying to jam in SVG with obfuscated notation into the HTML5 tag soups,
> > removing XLink syntax, SMIL, SVG fonts is an attempt to get the same
> situation
> > for SVG.
> I claim removing the XLink syntax is a step forward regarding
> simplicity

Why should SVG be simple? How could that be? Things can be simple or
complex, their degree of difficulty is subject to the fluency of the
executant. Would you think that removing one key from a sax will allow a
non-musician to play a jazz solo? Likewise, if anyone thinks that SVG
becomes any simpler by not having to write xlink, he/she will be deceived.

and acceptance of SVG.

To the best of my knowledge SVG has been widely accepted, do you have
different figures? If not, why do you advance such an argument? Here too
you are obfuscating the salient point in Olaf’s sentence. Are you doing
this on purpose?

> SMIL is still supported in four of
> the five main browsers. Google rescinded their removal of the SMIL
> implementation.[1] Only Microsoft doesn't have plans to implement
> it.[2] But in the long term it seems that, at least browser vendors,
> rather want to switch over to CSS animations, which is a proper static
> declaration equivalent. SVG fonts obviously didn't have much support
> among implementors, but got replaced by WOFF, also an open standard.
> > Well and CSS - there are mainly only drafts, but vendors propagate
> > nevertheless to authors already to use their prefixed own properties and
> syntax
> (Browser) vendors moved away from prefixed properties years ago in
> favor of preferences to avoid incompatibilities. They do not propagate
> their prefixed own properties and syntax (anymore).

It would be difficult for a vendor to “propagate” a proprietary prefix
(??). In any case, look well into CSS and JavaScript implementations.

Domenico Strazzullo

> Sebastian
> [1] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/
> 5o0yiO440LM/YGEJBsjUAwAJ
> [2] http://status.modern.ie/svgsmilanimation
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2017 13:27:02 UTC

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