Google to break the internet

[VectraMan]

Well a small part of it produced from some software what I wrote:

https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5708851034718208

You'd think using an API from the official standard would be a pretty good way of ensuring long term compatibility and not have it removed willy nilly by one of the major browsers. I can work around it, but that means that any customers that have used it are going to have to update their websites.

Serious question: Any idea who I complain to? Is anyone even likely to listen?

[piotrkula]

Hmmm.. just removed? Surely there must be a reason for that...

that is very strange, but then again if its Google specific they dont need to explain anything, its not the first time they did this sort of thing in the browser.
Probalby realised there is a better standard way to do that.

So your clients stuck on the version while you rewrite... this is why i dislike Google. THey should have just stuck with Gmail and Picasa.. now they doing all kinds of weird guff.

[VectraMan]

It's not Chrome specific, it's part of the SVG1.2 spec that's been removed for SVG2.0. But that isn't even an official standard yet; it's still a draft. Their justification is that it removes a lot of code complexity, but I would suggest that maintaining backwards compatibility for millions of users is more important than saving a few developers compile time.

There is talk of a replacement API, but they've removed the old one before they've implemented the new one.

I only found out about this because they put a warning into one of the Chrome 47 updates; 2 months before they take it out altogether with Chrome 48.

Bad Chromium Developers. (Not really Google).

[NickFitz]

The SVG Working Group decided to remove it in February last year: https://www.w3.org/2015/02/11-svg-minutes.html#item10

And yes, the Chromium developers are utter dicks for removing it, rather than merely flagging it as deprecated, before implementing the replacement API (that, indeed, isn't even part of a Recommendation yet).

But the Chromium developers are dicks about a lot of things. There's an overweening arrogance to them that shows up frequently in the Chromium bug tracker, whether it's WONTFIXing an obvious bug because fixing it would mean having to change one line of Gmail's CSS (I can't be bothered to hunt this one down but I saw it on a bug there a few months ago, literally stated in those terms), or implementing stuff however they damn please and then saying "Change the spec to match what we just did"

[AtW]

There's an overweening arrogance to them

They should consider joining this forum then ...

[MrMarkyMark]

So your clients stuck on the version while you rewrite.

Don't see the issue.

Kerrrrrrrchiiiinnnng

[VectraMan]

Don't see the issue.

Kerrrrrrrchiiiinnnng

Unfortunately in the non "disguised employment" world you don't get paid to fix your own mistakes, and from the customers' point of view this was a mistake I/we made.

[DimPrawn]

Unfortunately in the non "disguised employment" world you don't get paid to fix your own mistakes, and from the customers' point of view this was a mistake I/we made.

tulip happens. Tell the client to contact Google.