4 ms·

SVG is a good example of an overflexible, overcomplex standard with too much variety, too many options, too many different ways to do the same thing. The huge f

SVG is a good example of an overflexible, overcomplex standard with too much variety, too many options, too many different ways to do the same thing. The huge flexibility makes it almost impossible to correctly and fully implement. I'm not sure how it got this way, but it seems to be connected to the W3 consortium, which has many other instances of creating exceedingly complex, difficult-to-implement standards.

dahart 9y ago
Really? I feel like HTML & CSS have this problem way worse than SVG...
- Safety1stClyde 9y ago
  Yes, really. > I feel like HTML & CSS have this problem way worse than SVG... I don't want to be rude to you, but in my comment above, I wrote the following: > I'm not sure how it got this way, but it seems to be connected to the W3 consortium, which has many other instances of creating exceedingly complex, difficult-to-implement standards. I don't want to be rude to you or hurt your feelings, but the W3 consortium wrote the standards for HTML and CSS as well.
  - pmalynin 9y ago
    You've hurt my feelings.
  - dahart 9y ago
    I did read your comment. I do know that the W3C worked on all of them. I promise not take anything as rude as long as you're not trying to be rude. :) You didn't really clarify why SVG is a particularly good example, or why you're pointing a finger in the general direction of the W3C. How much have you used SVG? If you agree that HTML & CSS are worse than SVG, then what are you suggesting should be done about SVG? Personally, I find SVG pleasant to use compared to trying to get layout to work across different versions of browsers. Personally, I'd rather use SVG than CSS, if I have a choice. I was questioning why you think SVG is a "good" example of an overly complex API, relative to what seem like bigger & better examples. Pretty much all standards are difficult to implement. Tiff is an example of an image standard that almost nobody gets right, and it's way smaller in scope than HTML, CSS or SVG. It's also not made by the W3C. OpenGL is a standard that is very complicated and nobody implements completely, not even nVidia. There is a constant stream of complaints about it, and yet nothing better has come along to supplant it. Standards are standards because there are many groups of people with many different, and changing, requirements using them. That's why they get complex. Standards are always a disaster from the point of view of bystanders & people not involved and unaware of the history of the standard. They're often a disaster from the point of view of people working on them too, but sometimes for different reasons. In any case, the question on the table is what to do about it, that's what Amelia is asking. There's no question: things would get worse, not better, if we were to eliminate the SVG (or HTML or CSS) standards. There has to be a proposal on the table to replace it with something better. What do you propose?
    - Safety1stClyde 9y ago
      > Standards are standards because there are many groups of people with many different, and changing, requirements using them. That's why they get complex. This doesn't correspond to the information I have about SVG. As far as I know, W3 consortium rejected numerous proposals for a vector graphics standard and created their own from scratch. But I was not sure of that, so I did a little online research. I found this page linked from Wikipedia: https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Secret_Origin_of_SVG https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Secret_Origin_of_SVG > The SVG WG examined the general requirements and the various submissions, and decided to not 'develop' any of the submissions, but to develop a new language informed by, but not really based on, any of the submissions. According to this page, they claim they invented it themselves, "not really based on" any of the submissions. I actually do not know if the other submissions there are as much of a muddle as SVG, but I doubt it.
      - dahart 9y ago
        What's your point? That doesn't mean anything. Proposals for standards are rejected all the time by all standards committees. You don't seem to understand the reality of standards work, it is notoriously difficult. What do you propose to do with SVG? Get rid of it? Replace it? With what?
        Safety1stClyde 9y ago
        > Proposals for standards are rejected all the time by all standards committees. and yet > Standards are standards because there are many groups of people with many different, and changing, requirements using them. So on the one hand they're rejecting whatever, and on the other hand they are catering to all the different and changing requirements. > What's your point? I do not wish to seem rude but my point is "SVG is a good example of an overflexible, overcomplex standard with too much variety, too many options, too many different ways to do the same thing. The huge flexibility makes it almost impossible to correctly and fully implement."
        9y ago
ygra 9y ago
Part of this is that W3C standards are created separately from each other. But SVG 2 actually included a lot of work for harmonising SVG ways of doing things with CSS ways of doing things (in those cases it was often CSS doing something differently that has existed in SVG before, though). There's pretty much not a single web technology that isn't plagued by such problems, as much of it came to be as some browser experimenting, others eventually following suit, and only then being standardised.

dahart 9y ago

Really? I feel like HTML & CSS have this problem way worse than SVG...

Safety1stClyde 9y ago
Yes, really. > I feel like HTML & CSS have this problem way worse than SVG... I don't want to be rude to you, but in my comment above, I wrote the following: > I'm not sure how it got this way, but it seems to be connected to the W3 consortium, which has many other instances of creating exceedingly complex, difficult-to-implement standards. I don't want to be rude to you or hurt your feelings, but the W3 consortium wrote the standards for HTML and CSS as well.
- pmalynin 9y ago
  You've hurt my feelings.
- dahart 9y ago
  I did read your comment. I do know that the W3C worked on all of them. I promise not take anything as rude as long as you're not trying to be rude. :) You didn't really clarify why SVG is a particularly good example, or why you're pointing a finger in the general direction of the W3C. How much have you used SVG? If you agree that HTML & CSS are worse than SVG, then what are you suggesting should be done about SVG? Personally, I find SVG pleasant to use compared to trying to get layout to work across different versions of browsers. Personally, I'd rather use SVG than CSS, if I have a choice. I was questioning why you think SVG is a "good" example of an overly complex API, relative to what seem like bigger & better examples. Pretty much all standards are difficult to implement. Tiff is an example of an image standard that almost nobody gets right, and it's way smaller in scope than HTML, CSS or SVG. It's also not made by the W3C. OpenGL is a standard that is very complicated and nobody implements completely, not even nVidia. There is a constant stream of complaints about it, and yet nothing better has come along to supplant it. Standards are standards because there are many groups of people with many different, and changing, requirements using them. That's why they get complex. Standards are always a disaster from the point of view of bystanders & people not involved and unaware of the history of the standard. They're often a disaster from the point of view of people working on them too, but sometimes for different reasons. In any case, the question on the table is what to do about it, that's what Amelia is asking. There's no question: things would get worse, not better, if we were to eliminate the SVG (or HTML or CSS) standards. There has to be a proposal on the table to replace it with something better. What do you propose?
  - Safety1stClyde 9y ago
    > Standards are standards because there are many groups of people with many different, and changing, requirements using them. That's why they get complex. This doesn't correspond to the information I have about SVG. As far as I know, W3 consortium rejected numerous proposals for a vector graphics standard and created their own from scratch. But I was not sure of that, so I did a little online research. I found this page linked from Wikipedia: https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Secret_Origin_of_SVG https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Secret_Origin_of_SVG > The SVG WG examined the general requirements and the various submissions, and decided to not 'develop' any of the submissions, but to develop a new language informed by, but not really based on, any of the submissions. According to this page, they claim they invented it themselves, "not really based on" any of the submissions. I actually do not know if the other submissions there are as much of a muddle as SVG, but I doubt it.
    - dahart 9y ago
      What's your point? That doesn't mean anything. Proposals for standards are rejected all the time by all standards committees. You don't seem to understand the reality of standards work, it is notoriously difficult. What do you propose to do with SVG? Get rid of it? Replace it? With what?
      - Safety1stClyde 9y ago
        > Proposals for standards are rejected all the time by all standards committees. and yet > Standards are standards because there are many groups of people with many different, and changing, requirements using them. So on the one hand they're rejecting whatever, and on the other hand they are catering to all the different and changing requirements. > What's your point? I do not wish to seem rude but my point is "SVG is a good example of an overflexible, overcomplex standard with too much variety, too many options, too many different ways to do the same thing. The huge flexibility makes it almost impossible to correctly and fully implement."
        9y ago

ygra 9y ago

Part of this is that W3C standards are created separately from each other. But SVG 2 actually included a lot of work for harmonising SVG ways of doing things with CSS ways of doing things (in those cases it was often CSS doing something differently that has existed in SVG before, though). There's pretty much not a single web technology that isn't plagued by such problems, as much of it came to be as some browser experimenting, others eventually following suit, and only then being standardised.