Re: SVG's future

If there is any interest, I can build/moderate a website on my server that
presents the various new features available in SVG. It would present each
feature as a graphic example, understandable by web developers. It's intent
is to get feedback on how they could use the feature, and gauge their level
of enthusiasm.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Doug Schepers <standards@schepers.cc>
wrote:

> There is so much wrong thinking here, I won't bother to address most of
> it. Suffice it to say that this post has little insight into the
> complexities of the implementation landscape, nor the motivation of the
> implementers or of W3C. I'm shaking my head in wonder that such assertions
> can be made so confidently and forcefully with no evidence or rationale
> behind them, and I'm at a loss to understand why someone would do so.
>
> The claims that the problem was "Chris Lilley’s maniacal obsession for
> CSS" or that "Chris Lilley is the mastermind behind this move" are absurd,
> baseless, and irresponsible, and should be retracted. (In fact, while Chris
> is a competent contributor to the CSS WG, his real passions these days lie
> with fonts, colors, and audio, and he has no motivation to want SVG to
> suffer.)
>
>
> The answer to motivating the browser makers to implement SVG is to
> demonstrate concrete uses (not use cases, but actually real-world uses) in
> which features of SVG 2 are solving real problems in production software.
> This means putting it in a polyfill (or putting it into an open-source
> browser), and promoting its use.
>
> From a standardization perspective, the evidence of interest the
> implementers would like to see are pull requests on Github, test suite
> contributions, and other measurable activity, not really mailing list
> comments (especially not ones that veer off into philosophy or
> recrimination).
>
> If you want SVG 2 to move forward, stop complaining, and start
> contributing. Standards are made by those who show up.
>
>
> p.s. I have no interest in debating this or other topics on this mailing
> list or off-list. I'm offering this one-off comment, from my own
> perspective as someone who had a few years of an inside view, in case
> someone was taking the poster's comments too seriously. I'm happy to have a
> friendly off-list chat with anyone who'd like to know how they could
> productively help.
>
>
> Regards–
> Doug Schepers, Unaware Bumper At Large
>
>
>
> On 2/9/17 7:50 AM, Domenico Strazzullo wrote:
>
>> This discussion cannot end on an even faint suspicion that the users
>> were not showing interest. They have shown interest all along and it is
>> insane to expect them to do the same at every update of the spec.
>> Therefore any suggestion that the users should prove something or
>> provide evidence is absurd. It is not possible to recreate the type of
>> initial thrust of 2000 on demand.
>>
>>
>> The responsibility remains 100% on the W3 and the implementers for not
>> honoring their engagements, independently if it was maliciously or not.
>>
>>
>> The users can only express their deception and frustration, and it’s
>> understandable that the great majority doesn’t even bother anymore.
>>
>>
>> Anyone who justifies or accepts the idea of proprietary features of the
>> vendors, it’s because they haven’t experienced the joy of coding for the
>> web in the early days, which is precisely the meaning of the efforts by
>> the W3 over the years to create standards.
>>
>>
>> The cause for this epilogue for SVG is Chris Lilley’s maniacal obsession
>> for CSS. Doug Schepers’ head rolling is not enough and not totally fair
>> because he was just an unaware bumper. Chris Lilley is the mastermind
>> behind this move. He must not get away with it, his head must roll, and
>> things must get straightened by those who have the prerogative to do it.
>>
>>
>> We do know there’s no way in this little parallel world (or no man’s
>> land) to confront the establishment with its responsibilities and/or
>> liabilities. It's only up to their sense of ethics, if they have any.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Independent implementation
>>
>>
>> Mozilla IS an independent open source implementer. Its intention to not
>> apply the new SVG2 spec is the origin of this discussion. With these
>> premises, to “Find someone with resources to create a second independent
>> implementation in a browser” is the perfect utopia.
>>
>>
>> Somehow Mozilla is contradicting its mission, and this may be a blow for
>> the open source concept altogether, not just for SVG. My opinion is that
>> Mozilla should go on with the implementation of SVG2 because failing to
>> do so could be suicidal for Firefox.
>>
>> This is difficult to understand knowing that “Sponsored by KDDI, we've
>> succeeded to bring support for those new effects to firefox/Gecko”.
>> Perhaps at Mozilla too there are decision makers of a new kind.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Nikos Andronikos
>> <nikos.andronikos@gmail.com <mailto:nikos.andronikos@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi
>>
>>     On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:04 PM, グルチヤンラミン
>>     <ktecramin99@gmail.com <mailto:ktecramin99@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         I am wondering when people from svg will finally comment on this.
>>         For sure there must be a 'need' for writing standards.
>>
>>
>>
>>     I expect most don't watch this list too closely, since most spec
>>     discussion is on Github.
>>     Note I'm no longer an SVG WG member, but I'm not seeing very much
>>     activity since I've left. As far as I can tell, the W3C hasn't
>>     rechartered the SVG WG for 2017 yet.
>>
>>     The browsers are the ones you need to be talking to, but they have
>>     already spoken.
>>     We solicited feedback on what features of SVG 2 they are likely to
>>     implement. The data is here:
>>     https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLSS
>> FG2sjaJ8V8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/edit?usp=sharing
>>     <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLS
>> SFG2sjaJ8V8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>>     Also, the browsers have not been very active on the SVG WG during
>>     2016, which speaks to their priorities. In my opinion, It's not due
>>     to maliciousness, but resource constraints, but I'm not going to get
>>     into that side of this thread.
>>
>>     To change their mind, you'll need to do the following:
>>     1. Show a real need for these features - demonstrate use cases and
>>     get author feedback that they want this feature
>>     2. Find someone with resources to create a second independent
>>     implementation in a browser
>>
>>     To achieve (1), it seems the WICG
>>     (https://discourse.wicg.io/c/html/svg
>>     <https://discourse.wicg.io/c/html/svg>) is the preferred forum for
>>     discussion, though the SVG area is a ghost town. But to make your
>>     case there you will need supporters who want to see this
>>     implemented, so you will need to perform some kind of outreach to
>>     people who you think would use these vector-effects extensions.
>>
>>     To achieve (2), if you get enough support at step (1), you may be
>>     able to lobby browsers to implement the vector-effects. Another
>>     option is to find a third party commercial organisation who could
>>     sponsor an implementation. An organisation like Igalia could be
>>     contracted to create the implementation after you have had
>>     confirmation that the browsers will accept the feature. However, if
>>     a pathway to get the feature in ALL browsers isn't identified, then
>>     even with a second implementation, the feature will never be a
>> success.
>>
>>     I know this all seems like a big backwards step after the work that
>>     has been put into SVG 2 already, but that's the reality of the
>>     situation. Mesh gradients would have been a game changer for SVG,
>>     but it seems they are never going to be implemented either.
>>
>>     I wish you luck,
>>     Nikos.
>>
>>
>>
>>