Re: SVG2 CR - Catmull-Rom curve commands missing??

Methinks any future upgrades to SVG should be issued as individual
features, rather than a grandiose draft like SVG 2..
Browsers are currently updated as features are included...why not SVG?
I believe this would encourage SVG web developers to submit their ideas and
particapate in implementing them.
Francis Hemsher

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:16 AM matshyeq <matshyeq@gmail.com> wrote:

> Fully Agree!,
>
> I heard some voices (eg. SVG standard being stalled blocking Inkscape
> development) but I had no idea on the scale of stagnation.
> The original input requirements look awesome!
> and it's truly sad that any work still being done on it focuses rather on
> throwing stuff out of scope just to quickly bump up the number.
>
> While it could seem to be rational to release some important (?) changes
> now rather than postpone the whole release
> it really works against the standard.
> Releasing half cooked stuff (or even worse: only some minor, cosmetic
> changes) doesn't bring the incentive for adoption.
> Again, that's actually harming the standard - Check out XSLT2.0 support by
> Microsoft or in browsers…
>
> What is really surprising is that this is happening now, when first SVG
> standard is finally very well supported (all browsers!, all vector drawing
> software) and the industry is now awaiting a long list of improvements (
> https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG2_Requirements_Input).
>
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 at 14:29, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <dr.o.hoffmann@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> almost all new features identified to be required in the beginning of SVG
>> 2
>> https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG2_Requirements_Input
>> are absent in the current draft:
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/CR-SVG2-20181004/
>>
>> After all these years and compared to SVG 1.1 and SVG tiny 1.2 the current
>> draft for SVG 2 looks like stagnation or even regression.
>> It is quite surprising, that it did not already simply end as a note and
>> work
>> on SVG is stopped completely.
>>
>> Alternatively, looking on the current draft for SVG 2, it seems to be
>> time now
>> to reject this and to start from the beginning with the list of
>> requirements
>> from 2012 ;o)
>> Else there is low chance, that authors and audience can enjoy new
>> features in
>> this century ;o)
>>
>> >Hello,
>> >
>> >What happened to this great idea?
>> >
>> >https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-SVG2-20150409/
>> paths.html#PathDataCatmullRomCommand
>> >https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/3085
>>
>>
>> >we wait 8 long years, hoping and only to find it missing now?
>>
>> >Thank you,
>> >Kind Regards
>> >~Msciwoj
>>
>>