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

Me joining the usual suspects.

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 5:53 PM Francis Hemsher <fhemsher@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>