On Thursday, December 8, 2005, 11:13:45 AM, Jonathan wrote: JW> Hi Domenico,
JW> I understand your main argument that you think it's too early to JW> release Mozilla's SVG implementation, and that you think the overall JW> effect will be to harm SVG on the Web. I just happen to take the JW> opposite view. I do as well; the release of Firefox 1.5 with SVG support enabled is a good thing for SVG. I think the release of Opera 9 is a good thing also. Yes, both of those implementations are incomplete; well, ASV 1,2,3 and 6 are incomplete also. It just depends on where you look and how detailed you want to get. The lack of animation in Firefox and the lack of font support are unfortunate, sure; I had hoped that these would be addressed sooner rather than later. >> If the 70% figure of rendering success has been realistically set by >> yourself then I don't dispute it, but I randomly visited about 15 of >> the svg links in my bookmarks and got 0% positive results. JW> I wonder how many of these were a result of problems in the SVG vs. JW> problems or missing features in Mozilla. Unfortunately so much of JW> the SVG in the wild falls into the former category it's difficult to JW> determine figures regarding how much should work, and how much is JW> expected not to. >> A big difference between ASV 1 and 2 and FFsvg is that ASV simply >> allowed the kick off, I don't think there were any works prior to >> that, or were there? Yes, there were implementations before ASV1. JW> In my opinion SVG has done anything but "kick off" on the Web. The volume of JW> SVG out there doesn't even register when compared to mainstream Web content JW> and that situation has previously shown little sign of change. Personally, I JW> believe a fundamental reason for this has been the lack of native support. I agree that having to download a plugin is a disincentive for mainstream use (although people also say that about having to download an html browser). JW> A JW> lot of people simply won't consider using a technology for which the only JW> real support is a plug-in with an unknown, but probably small and shrinking JW> install base. Native support not only eliminates the plug-in barrier, but JW> for some people I expect it will allay concerns about the technology's JW> future on the Web. By putting a partial implementation into the hands of the JW> wider developer community we might give SVG a chance to "kick off" on the JW> Web for real - before it's too late. Waiting until a year from now (actually JW> probably more like 18 months) would certainly be too late I think. We need JW> that time for new people to start learning about it and begin to use it. JW> This way some current SVG won't work, yes. But it will bring in a whole new JW> user base, giving SVG a chance to live and grow rather than wither into JW> permenant insignificance, on the Web. I agree. Unfortunately,based on previous experience, I also expect to see work arounds deployed to patch around the holes. Just like people used getURL and parseXMLto patch around the lack of external references in ASV, I suppose we will see animation done in script that could have been done declaratively, and glyphs converted to outlines because of the lack of svg font support in FF1.5 >> Of course in this type of >> society the trend to not listen to older, wiser people, is ever >> galloping. JW> "Not fair!" It was widely known that we planned to include our SVG support, JW> we provided links to test builds and we asked for feedback. Yes, you did. And there were several Mozilla SVG developers at SVG Open. I gave feedback, and i encouraged the release. It was a good decision. One thing the SVG community has learned is that uptake is hurt by big gaps between software releases; it generates frustration and slows momentum and generates a lot of speculation about continued support. I really hope that the Gecko 1.8/1.9 issues donot result in a similar hiatus. JW> We were JW> listening. We still are. But unfortunatley that doesn't mean we can make JW> everyone happy, or that we can go back now and turn off the SVG support. And if you did, I would complain :_) JW> You say you (the Mozilla team) poled the community. I've been away >> from the list for a few months, as other developers have. Wouldn't >> have it been more appropriate to make some individual contact, like >> you did when you suggested auditing, and seek personal advice >> like "Hi xyz, the implementation is in advanced state, but this and >> that is still missing, do you think it would be blah blah?". This is exactly what they did. JW> Having talked on and off the lists for months both about how to make JW> your SVG valid enough to give FF a fighting chance to render it, and JW> the fact that we were going to release our SVG implementation, I JW> hoped that awareness was high enough for people to make their own JW> decisions to test their content or not. I have been discouraging people from making ASV-specific content for years. Some people just don't get it, presumably the same people that make Win IE x.y-specific content. JW> I'm keen to hear feedback (on or off list) from all sides to get a JW> better idea of how much demand exists for different features. JW> Although, as I said, that won't change what's in FF 1.5 now, it JW> gives us a focus for the next release. I mentioned that animation and fonts are the two big issues that stick out for me. However, having seen other static-only implementations add scripting and then attempt to add declarative animation and then decide a big rewrite is needed to get decent animation performance, I can understand if developer builds take a while to get animation. JW> We don't hear too much from people regarding this, perhaps because JW> people don't want to use up our time and they assume we know what's JW> missing. Well we do know what's missing, but we could certainly do JW> with a better idea of how much demand there is for specific features JW> to help us focus on what to implement/fix next. Right. >> Those sound like rather nasty problems. Bug reports with testcases >> would be helpful. >> >> Are you serious??? I'm a human, can you please talk in a way other >> than binary logic? I mean... SMIL is missing in the implementation >> and you ask for bug report? What would be the point? You call them >> nasty problems, that is what they are, not bugs. JW> The descriptions you gave sounded like they were most likely the result of JW> bugs to me, not missing functuality. I agree there is no point sending in a bug like "there is no smil animations support". They know, and there already is such a bug. Bug reports on detailed areas are helpful though. For example I sent in some in the beta phase (Deerpark 1 and onwards) on problems with gradients (repeat and reflect on radial gradients,and problems with degenerate gradients). The former turned out to be a GDI bug that does not affect Cairo builds, and the latter they fixed; both were dealt with very promptly. -- Chris Lilley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/I258zB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/1U_rlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ----- To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" ---- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
