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

Re: SVG's future

From: Domenico Strazzullo <strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:47:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CABgXer1a6mwwhZ3zRxTc2OXPiZbPfH6AHof6iiDHWbs__opJiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Doug Schepers <standards@schepers.cc>, Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@gmail.com>, 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>, Francis Hemsher <fhemsher@gmail.com>
Let’s try to reformulate.

Thanks Tab!

Please let's earn some respect for one another! Different opinions and
valid arguments can be expressed in an objective way, as well as in a
subjective way, let’s leave it to the free will. This is meant for all
sides! Just in case the fascists were planning a comeback. Come to think,
maybe it’s too late, remember the last time? That’s how they start, by
attempting surreptitiously to limit the ways of expression.

But I have a better suggestion: you guys try to stick to the substance of
the matter, which remains a serious one, don’t let your attention be
diverted by common places and formality. Each one who cares about this
matter should hammer in his or her opinions with the means that he or she
judges to be conformant with his or her personality and beliefs. The
essential thing being to get the commonly sought result. Don’t overestimate
your way with things, and don’t underestimate that of others. What counts
is to build a front of ideas, opinions, arguments and complaints, on one
side, and to propose concrete actions on the other, like here
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/159f3a1c675326b1), for those who
have faith in that approach (I personally think it is somehow detrimental
if premature, as it represents acceptance, submission, discharge of
responsibilities. It should be used if and when the case is closed).

What we are doing is really a house of cards. If regularly somebody keeps
taking one out at the base, nobody is going to take it seriously.

So then it’s difficult to understand what kind of point, in the view of the
issue, you are trying to make by being outraged at the protest language
that somebody uses. That language (which by the way corresponds to what I
really think, based on history) had the merit, for example, to “force” Doug
Schepers to write. However, if Doug decides to write with a Mea Culpa, a
thing that I expect, I may possibly retract words that may be considered as
offending. The same goes for Chris Lilley and the W3 as an entity, provided
that they also propose at least a Band Aid, some sort of good intention.

Below is the list of hot words and sentences in my posts, I don’t think I
missed any. Read well and see how nothing there is really shocking. See how
words or concepts that relate to delictual matter are either impersonal, or
conditional, or in extreme cases simply tendentious, as to try to inoculate
a feeling of responsibility. Moral of the story, don’t judge hastily.
Besides, you are not judges.

A special word for you, Sebastian: I’m not the W3C, I’m here, please do not
make disagreeable remarks about me or my words through a bias.

Domenico Strazzullo

The incriminated list

“but in an epoch of characterized corruption…”

“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”

“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”

“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”

“miserable intrigues”

“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”

“useless in the absence of political will –or, worse, in the presence of
antagonist strategies– from the authorities and the vendors.”

“The responsibility remains 100% on the W3 and the implementers for not
honoring their engagements, independently if it was maliciously or not.”

“The cause for this epilogue for SVG is Chris Lilley’s maniacal obsession
for CSS”

“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.”

“Perhaps in the past, in his obtuse stubbornness, Chris may not have been
totally aware of how much SVG would “suffer”, not considering his actions
as misdoings.”

“But perhaps you and Chris are really candid? I give you the benefit of the

“You managed to chase out anyone that you could not control, most of the
intellectual force.”

“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.”

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Sebastian Zartner <
sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10 February 2017 at 21:29, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Domenico Strazzullo
> > <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.
> Thanks Tab! Please let's keep some respect for each other! Different
> opinions and valid arguments can be expessed in an objective way. This
> is meant for both sides!
> On 10 February 2017 at 06:23, Doug Schepers <standards@schepers.cc> wrote:
> > 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).
> As I wrote before, I'd really like to hear from browser makers why
> they are hesitant or even reluctant to implement SVG 2 features,
> especially as several of them were involved in the specification by
> providing editors.
> Regarding real-world uses, see mesh gradients as example. Those were
> implemented in Inkscape 0.92 and there are also several
> polyfills[1][2] available, though still no browser vendor seems to be
> willing to implement them.
> Another case: Mozilla is holding back the implementation of
> vector-effect property values[3] (done by a volunteer), because the
> other browser vendors don't indicate implementation interest.
> Sebastian
> [1] http://tavmjong.free.fr/SVG/POLYFILL/MESH/mesh.html
> [2] http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Mesh-Gradients-Polyfill-
> td4978519.html
> [3] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1318208#c67
Received on Monday, 13 February 2017 10:48:25 UTC

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