Re: SVG's future

On 13 February 2017 at 06:05, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No own suggestions/ideas, what to do to get SVG implementations complete?
>> I think, there are meanwhile millions of authors with a lot of content
>> around,
>> much interested in complete implementations, without a need to worry about
>> different bugs and caps in different common user-agents, surely a lot of
>> them
>> interested as well in a new version of SVG with new features, simplifying
>> their work or even allowing new types of images
>
> SVG is more successful today than it's ever been. Maybe those incomplete
> features weren't needed in the first place?

That's a claim which adds fuel to the fire for those trying to defend SVG 2.
The previously mentioned mesh gradients are a good example proving
that this claim is not generally true, because there's a lot of
interest for them.

> I believe that the future of SVG does not consist of new graphical features
> but of a deeper integration with the rest of the platform as well as offer
> more consistency. (ie common matrices, CORS/CSP, CSS)
> That can be done outside of SVG and AFAIK is still moving ahead.

I agree that SVG profits from more consistency with the rest of the
platform - and SVG 2 does a giant leap towards that, already. Though,
as the feature support spreadsheet[1] indicates, browser vendors only
partly share that opinion.

But I believe SVG's future does not only lie in consistency with other
standards, it also needs to provide new (partly already long-demanded)
features to stay successful, like it's done for any other standards of
the W3C is working on.
And I hope that the CSSWG keeps that in mind if it takes over parts of
SVG 2 as discussed[2].

Sebastian

[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLSSFG2sjaJ8V8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/edit#gid=0
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Feb/0046.html

Received on Monday, 13 February 2017 07:28:00 UTC