Re: SVG's future

>Sebastian:

[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLSSFG2sjaJ8V
8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/edit#gid=0
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Feb/0046.html

Thanks for the above. I was trying to come up with a format for a website
that addressed the various features of SVG2. The intent is to open each
feature and show web developers implementation progress, what each will
accomplish for them, plus publish feedback on their comments.
Ameial's [1] was perfect.

Also, [2] gives a list of CSSWG + SVG players. Interested parties can now
participate/monitor progress via these folks.

Francis

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Sebastian Zartner <
> sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> I'll rephrase: with SVG being so popular, if a feature has bugs why were
> those not fixed?
>
> 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.
>
>
> Mesh gradients are currently underspecified and from my experience very
> difficult to implement. For example, Apple Preview still displays some of
> them wrong after 20 years.
>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> Thank you for pasting that document. Amelia is a great example of an
> author who helps with the process. There would be no SVG2 document without
> her.
> My advice is for you: pick a feature, build consensus, write test files
> and help with the implementation.
>
> It's a lot of work and slow.
>
>
>> 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/1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLSS
>> FG2sjaJ8V8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/edit#gid=0
>> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Feb/0046.html
>>
>
>