SVG Working Group Teleconference -- 08 Dec 2016

<scribe> scribe: nikos

SVG 2 feature feedback

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkqzcxY53h7liRYppLSSFG2sjaJ8V8TCP5rWLZK0AxA/edit?usp=sharing

nikos: We have feedback from MS, Google, and FireFox
... it's not very promising. Lots of 'don't support'
... I would like to get some context - is this we won't ever support, or we don't have time to work in the next year

Tav: I think I'm going to end my involvement. This is basically nothing
... InkScape will probably move away from SVG too

shepazu: Just because Microsoft won't implement things, doesn't mean we won't get other implementations

AmeliaBR: As you said Nikos, we need to get clarification if this is just this year or ever
... certainly not supporting text in shape is rather strange when some browsers already support shape-text in css

shepazu: not supporting text-orientation? That's weird

AmeliaBR: that's already been fully implemented in places

Tav: yeah I guess it should be clarified. But this basically says SVG 2 is dead as far as I can tell
... there's really almost nothing in here

AmeliaBR: it looks like they've gone through and marked what they are actually working on
... I think text-transform is already supported in all browsers and has been marked as a X

nikos: Seems like next stage is to have a discussion with the people who gave feedback

AmeliaBR: The problem we have is the people who are representatives are not the people who use or implement SVG
... we see it on GitHub where the people filing issues are not the people who are representatives

<stakagi> We are now developing to implement the implementation of vector-effect and embedded content to firefox.

AmeliaBR: having people who are graphically involved with the authoring process is important for understanding the pain points, etc
... it needs to be said, without browser support for advanced SVG. Is the SVG spec naturally going to fork? Is there still a desire for an open format for vector graphics?
... if you can't use those vector graphics in web sites?
... We would basically need specialised graphics software - Adobe and possibly others, to get involved
... is there support for going ahead with standardisation of a version of SVG with advanced graphical features?
... and is there enough support in the W3C to continue that?
... or is SVG as an advanced graphics language dead? And all that is useful at this point is to standardise it as it is currently supported in web browsers
... and clean up cross browser incompatibilities without adding new features

nikos: My feeling is that you would be looking at a different set of W3C members to support SVG as a general open format for vectors

Tav: I had an interesting discussion with someone - was talking about a mesh gradient poly fill in Canvas. He noted that Canvas has great support and could see where SVG is hitting a wall

shepazu: The browsers have for a long time wanted to reduce features and optimise for polyfills and script implementation of features
... their attitude towards SVG seems to reflect taht
... I heard discussions about this at TPAC. They were oblivious to the fact that without script none of these features work
... and all these features using script reduces performance client side
... and the fidelity and ability of the language
... I'm very disappointed by these results
... To be frank, I don't think they're thinking very deeply about the problems on the web. Developers rather than browsers are leading the way

nikos: The things the browser vedors seem to want to work on are based on what the engineers want and the code they know well and that's pretty sad

Tav: In terms of manpower. Where are we? We have two people leaving at the end of the year.

shepazu: W3C will put a staff contact on if there's interest from the browsers in getting the cleaned up version of SVG 2 completed

nikos: I'd be willing to put in my own time if there's interest in new features and not just butchering the spec. There's little motivation for me to do that.

AmeliaBR: what I expect would happen is move SVG under CSSWG and the spec will be a tiny fraction of what we've been working on

shepazu: I'm not totally pessimistic. Think there's a chance for some CSS related features to be pushed forward.

nikos: Ok so let's talk about what our plan is now

shepazu: Tav has made it pretty clear what his plan is

Tav: I will definitely go ahead and do SVG 2 text - the way I wrote it there's SVG 1.1 fallback
... so that will get done and will replace SVG 1.2 text
... mesh gradients are going to be released

nikos: Good. I think InkScape totally following the SVG spec is unnecessary. It should push ahead

Tav: It will - carefully

shepazu: If things are to move to incubation. There's a possibility of doing some stuff in an incubator group
... maybe it's time for developers to look at it from a polyfill perspective and take control of SVG, because the browsers don't seem to be leading on it

<stakagi> +1

Tav: I had problems with mesh gradients because there's no way to embed a canvs in an svg shape

shepazu: Think we could get traction with that because that's the direction they want to go in

Tav: I came across bugs in Chrome and Firefox that blocked me
... haven't documented them yet - was going to bring them up with the group

shepazu: When you get the chance, you should file some bugs

nikos: Houdini custom paint is promising. I have a feeling it may not be powerful enough for that sort of pixel bashing.
... It's something we should have a go at so we can provide feedback

Tav: I can provide some topics for next week if we want to talk about this

nikos: Ok. It's worth documenting them
... Let's call the meeting there

RRSAgent: make minutes

- DRAFT -

SVG Working Group Teleconference

08 Dec 2016

Attendees

Contents

SVG 2 feature feedback

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output