Re: SVG's future

Hi Domenico,

I've been following the SVG work of many years, not contributing here
sorry, but have been trying to help progress on higher performance
languages for the web and like the potential of asm.js and WebAssembly.
So might it be possible to abstract some extensions so that they could
be user supplied in such forms?

This might allows users to extend the web in such areas as SVG if they
choose to and for groups to even differ in their implementations as
these would be user supplied code. So then rather than working on a
standard and depending on dominant implementations to adopt them and
implement them, the work could start with the web community writing the
support. The dynamics of these communities would then drive any de facto
standards that emerge, but people could still deploy different
variations if they choose to do so. Could this model have potential for
the future of the web and for SVG 2?

This would not avoid the need to work on standards, which are still very
useful to allow exchange and interoperation, but it might uncouple this
work from being locked into this forum and from depending on the
dominant web browsers.

I was hesitant to suggest this model for SVG as it appears that the
level of integration is high, and that appears to be quite a barrier.
It's not just a matter of supplying an SVG image URL plus a decoder is it?

Could people ponder what would be necessary, how the code could be
sandboxed to make it acceptable and if that barrier could even be reached.

btw: I am not so sure about your freedoms to say things about other
people, you might want to get some advice. Even casting people in a bad
light might be a liability. My only thought is that perhaps you could
cast your comments about ideas or work practice ideas etc to make them
impersonal.

Regards
Douglas Crosher


On 02/12/2017 03:15 AM, Domenico Strazzullo wrote:
> I received a private message more or less on the same tone that reads:
> 
> 
> “You seem like a sad man with a lot of anger in your life, and little
> respect for others. 
> 
> Chill out. You're only making a fool of yourself.”
> 
>  
> 
> There would be no harm in addressing this kind of message publicly. Both
> messages give opportunities for clarifications. However the first
> paragraph relates to the tone and attitude used. After that, you may
> find what follows instructive.
> 
>  
> 
> Acid comments about somebody’s private life, without any accusation on a
> concrete action that may have had or may have detrimental consequences
> in a wider scope, are typical of behind the screen valiant paladins
> rising in defense of the establishment, without real mission and without
> being asked or rewarded for.
> 
> Opposed to that, please note that Doug and I have already had in the
> past very animated face to face discussions, that the issue is an old
> one, and strictly related to SVG. Also note that in previous posts on
> this thread I have also put in evidence some of Doug’s qualities as a
> man. What may be defined as attacks, carry precisely over the way he has
> conducted his mission at W3 in relation to SVG, and the consequences
> that derived from that conduct, whether he was well aware or not of
> whose interests he was serving primarily, and if those interests were in
> accordance with those of the majority. The same does/may apply to Chris
> Lilley and others, but we don’t know if they are really around or not,
> ready to take their responsibilities, or if they care at all.
> 
> 
> The non-acknowledgment, and the acceptance of the status quo deriving
> from it, progressively diminish the chances of SVG 2 being implemented,
> until the turmoil eventually fades out, closing the case.      
> 
> 
> Also take note that it’s quite common to have to resort to verbal or
> written attacks to defend principles, where other methods reveal to have
> failed, especially when dealing with public affairs, particularly those
> that suffer from political schemes. Some undertake to defend principles,
> and some don’t. Learn how to respect both. Learn how to not confuse
> determination with foolishness. Learn how to express your ideas with
> argumentations based on facts and people that you know, not based on
> generic feelings about people that you don’t know.
> 
> 
> Please also take note that some acquaintances and friends of mine are
> questioning me, using an appropriate tone, about what the goal is and if
> this is the best way to reach it.
> 
> 
> I don’t know if this is the best way to reach it, but I do know that so
> far soft manners and patience have not prevented the demolition of SVG
> from happening. It actually came about unexpectedly for most. Talking of
> which, I found a revelatory clue in Doug’s post that escaped my
> attention, where he says first thing off:
> 
> 
> “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.”
> 
> 
> The last sentence. OK, this, to me, proves that he’d been knowing all
> along (I don’t really need a proof, but others may), who knows since
> when. Therefore it proves the deceit towards the latest WG participants,
> who were left to work hard until they started suspecting lately that
> their work was already in a dead end, as well as those before them and
> all the bank of past and present users and contributors.
> 
> 
> Put in very simple words, this is called cheating, dishonesty.
> 
> 
> I hear some say “Big deal, this is common, it’s how the world functions
> anyway.” Some among the population are happy with it and some are not.
> The ones cannot force the others to be happy or unhappy about it.
> 
> 
> Please note that I haven’t questioned or offended anyone else other than
> members of the W3 staff, and that so far I have only questioned the
> choices of the implementers from an ethical standpoint, I haven’t
> offended them yet, which may happen if the situation requires it and if
> the opportunity arises, which I think is very unlikely.
> 
> 
> The goal is to force: 1) the W3 to take its responsibilities by publicly
> admitting it failed to fulfill its mission; 2) the implementation of SVG
> 2 as per agreements and understandings.
> 
> 
> The second point is admittedly overly optimistic. But the first point
> would probably lead to internal restructuring, which in turn may make
> point 2 possible.
> 
> 
> If you guys have some other valid approach to propose, go ahead. I
> explained at large the absurdity of the approach consisting in pulling
> requests, test suites, polyfills, and such. Nobody has contradicted or
> discussed in any way my assessment. Hopefully nobody believes in that
> “remake” or “reload” approach, probably because everybody understands
> deep down that if we were cheated once, under the same conditions we
> would be exposed to be cheated again. After some people broke their
> asses on test suites, a mammoth work I believe, how can anyone possibly
> expect there will be new candidates when they see the appalling lack of
> consideration for the work that was done? A new WG was not even
> appointed, and that, without even an announcement.
> 
> 
> Please learn how to draw the proper conclusions from events. To do the
> three monkeys business is not a solution, especially when the monkey who
> doesn’t speak, speaks up to say that the monkeys who see, hear, and
> speak, are fools.
> 
> 
> I hope this dissipates your perplexities. By the way, are you two
> perplex at all, or did you just need to exist in some way? If you have
> perplexities you can express them in the proper manner. Nobody has
> attacked you. If and when Doug Schepers, Chris Lilley, or other members
> of theW3 wish to defend themselves from the accusations they know how to
> do it, and they’re welcome. Anyone else counter-attacking in
> self-appointed defense of the establishment, is irrelevant and annoying,
> even if you were entire squads. Your intervention is deprived of any
> argumentation related to SVG and its future, as per the subject line .
> Simple pollution.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> OT
> 
> 
> For severe violations you need to look upstairs. A political attack is
> not a severe violation because it’s not at all a violation, however
> virulent it may be, and this in any context, from congresses, through
> associations, to simple gatherings. There are no special rules for W3C
> mailing lists. This is thanks to freedom of expression. Totalitarians
> and fascists normally try to choke free expression. Choose your camp and
> let us know.
> 
> 
> When I said the W3 was corrupt on this I had the right to think it and
> say it, and I still have it unless they prove they were not. OK?
> 
> 
> Domenico Strazzullo
> 
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com
> <mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Domenico Strazzullo
>     <strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com
>     <mailto:strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > [snip quite a lot]
> 
>     This uninformed and insulting ranting is a severe violation of the
>     community norms for a W3C mailing list.  Stop this now.
> 
>     ~TJ
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 12 February 2017 15:18:08 UTC