On 22 Apr 2017 07:59, "Steve Litt" <slitt@...2357...> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 22:07:17 +0100 Appears to be based on:
* http://codepen.io/AmeliaBR/post/me-and-svg
* http://tavmjong.free.fr/svg2_status.html
Having read both the preceding, it looks to me like the project to define version 2 simply failed, probably because they bit off more than they could chew. Or perhaps more than browser makers were willing to implement at one time.
I'm not in a position to know about the SVG2 spec project, but sometimes when a specification fails, it's for the best. Sometimes a bunch of people get together and frenzy themselves into including or providing hooks for every conceivable situation, and that usually results in complexity, which results in bugs, instability and incompatibility.
The second of the articles mentioned the browser makers are ready, willing and able to implement an SVG2 with problem fixes and a few specific features. I'd hardly call that "life support." At this point I'm not sure who is left to tear out the stuff that's objected to: It would be horribly difficult to work all those months on a spec you love only to be told to rip it out, but if somebody can rip out the unwanted part of the spec, SVG progresses, though more slowly. I'd imagine the ripped out stuff gets put in a new document, some of which will someday become SVG3.
Like I say, my knowlege of the situation is based on the two links quoted in this thread, but it doesn't seem as dire as "life support" to me, nor does it seem like an excuse for radically changing Inkscape, which works quite well right now, producing and rendering standard SVG files.
I'm not in a position to know either, but two articles by people both repected, committed and passionate speaks loudly.
Whatever the defences of the status quo, there may be no SVG 3. That's what the what-if thread is raising.
/d