Re: SVG2 CR 2016/2018

> Very well said, in particular:
> >Simply nobody needs such an empty version, maybe except the SVG working
> group members to show existence.
> I wonder if this "last call for CR review" thread has actually reached
> anyone from the committee… and if so, what their response is?
> ~Msciwoj

There are still questions open concerning the CR from 2016-09-15

Obviously there is not much care about open questions and failed
requirements, empty CRs now at the W3C.
About ~10years ago it was still possible to work somehow with an effect at the 
W3C in some groups, today it seems to be dominated completely by companies and 
organisations without a really interest in standards, instead they prefer to 
develop their own issues to improve customer tie/gagging to their own concepts 
and products ;o)
Therefore almost no meaningful new recommendations, no new features or as we 
can see in the CSS area: an almost infinite number of working drafts without 
complete implementations - these examples show already, that the module 
approach already failed at W3C for another major format - obviously this is 
intended now for SVG as well.
The approach for (X)HTML seems to be a little bit different - two different 
groups write documents for a never-ending-story without version indications, 
text blown up with a lot of irrelevant information (for most authors), but 
relevant information is often hidden somewhere (without links to it, where it 
would be expected), therefore almost unreadable for the audience and 
practically not implementable for new groups wanting to provide a completely 
new program ;o)

Conclusion: The current major players use the W3C mainly to prevent, that new 
players, competitors can have success in the near future.

Received on Thursday, 22 November 2018 11:05:12 UTC