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

Re: Regarding implementation of SVG2 vector effects

From: Domenico Strazzullo <strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 15:20:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CABgXer3SvaSReynZWQJQuM1RD_PAUFScJTLG=-dMub1f6oaCqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Francis Hemsher <fhemsher@gmail.com>
Cc: グルチヤンラミン <ktecramin99@gmail.com>, "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
I wouldn’t worry about CSS not following its course with new features. I do
worry about SVG being abandoned.

After the first announcement on this topic there hasn’t been a single
comment by the authorities. Are they working on coordination, or preparing
some statements, or maybe they have already abandoned the ship?

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Francis Hemsher <fhemsher@gmail.com> wrote:

> We should not fight the CSS juggernaut, but merely show that the symphony
> CSS conducts does need individual notes, many of them could be the rich svg
> components contained in SVG2 and its predecessors.
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Domenico Strazzullo <
> strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2017 14:20:49 UTC

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