IRC log of webcgm on 2006-08-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:44:10 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webcgm
07:44:11 [RRSAgent]
logging to
07:44:12 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
07:44:12 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webcgm
07:44:14 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WebCGM
07:44:14 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, trackbot
07:44:15 [trackbot]
Meeting: WebCGM WG Teleconference
07:44:15 [trackbot]
Date: 23 August 2006
07:44:48 [lofton]
lofton has joined #webcgm
07:44:56 [Chris]
Meeting: WebCGM WG f2f, Cologne
07:45:21 [lofton]
Chair: Lofton
07:46:03 [dc]
dc has joined #webcgm
07:46:28 [lofton]
Scribe: Dave
07:46:35 [lofton]
Scribenick: dc
07:47:11 [lofton]
Scribes chosen for Session 1-6: Dave, Don, Benoit, Thierry, Chris, Stuart
07:47:20 [BB]
BB has joined #webcgm
07:47:43 [lofton]
07:47:58 [don]
don has joined #webcgm
07:48:48 [dc]
Topic: Welcome, Logistics, Week's events, Review agenda
07:49:33 [dc]
Topic: Review Goals
07:49:34 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #webcgm
07:49:52 [Chris]
The goals sound good to me
07:50:19 [Chris]
LC= Last Call. CR = Candidate Recommendation
07:51:12 [dc]
finalize LC processing
07:51:24 [dc]
schedule CR spec production
07:51:34 [dc]
finalize agreement on CR exit criteria
07:51:45 [dc]
look at implementations and test suites
07:51:56 [dc]
plan & agree CR/PR schedules
07:51:57 [thierry]
thierry has joined #webcgm
07:52:07 [dc]
(start) prepare CR transition materials
07:53:01 [dc]
Webnesday afternoon we will have a telecon with the inplementers not present
07:53:16 [dc]
Topic: Last Call processing
07:53:44 [Chris]
I reminded WAIPF about an outstanding review
07:53:45 [Chris]
07:54:02 [thierry]
Disposition of comments for WebCGM 2.0 Last Call
07:54:14 [thierry]
07:56:59 [dc]
All last call comments received to date have been resolved
07:57:30 [dc]
May still get comments from WAIPF
07:58:52 [dc]
but as we move to CR processing we have a choice of how we deal with them
08:00:33 [dc]
two loose ends from internal discussions
08:00:54 [dc]
1. namespace defintion
08:01:19 [dc]
2. Benoit's rewording of highlight description
08:04:28 [dc]
namespace URI comment url
08:04:31 [dc]
08:13:30 [dc]
System identfiercurrently in WebCGM 2.0
08:13:41 [dc]
08:14:51 [dc]
We seem to be ok to keep the URI the same
08:15:32 [dc]
We seem to be ok to keep the Public and System identifier the same
08:16:12 [dc]
The dereference document should reflect the doublicity of the specification with both W3C and OASIS
08:17:08 [dc]
Action: Chris to communicate with directory with namespace uri and identifiers
08:17:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-8 - Communicate with directory with namespace uri and identifiers [on Chris Lilley - due 2006-08-30].
08:19:18 [Chris]
08:20:35 [lofton]
current NS URI:
08:20:42 [dc]
Resolution: adopt WebCGM namespace for all versions of 2
08:20:57 [dc]
08:23:06 [dc]
Namespace URI discussion complete
08:23:55 [dc]
Highlight method clarification original post
08:24:04 [dc]
08:24:23 [dc]
Benoit's proposal
08:24:45 [dc]
08:26:09 [dc]
BB - focus on object behavior to resolve this question
08:34:29 [dc]
BB - if you highlight an object, does the highlight propagate to children objects?
08:49:53 [dc]
WebCGM 2.0 reference:
08:49:56 [dc]
08:50:28 [Chris]
void highlight(in WebCGMNodeList nodes,
08:50:28 [Chris]
in boolean state);
08:50:47 [Chris]
void highlight(in WebCGMNodeList nodes)
08:50:57 [Chris]
void clearHilight()
08:52:54 [Chris]
replace the first one (from the spec) with the two methods. one to add hilighting and one to clear it all
08:54:11 [Chris]
perhaps change the method name to addHilight
08:54:26 [Chris]
This makes the DOMmatch the object behaviors
08:54:40 [dc]
Currently the DOM doesn't match the description of the object behaviors
08:57:50 [dc]
Agreed that when an object is highlighted, all of it's children highlight
08:58:10 [dc]
Resolution: Acept Chris' proposal
09:00:34 [dc]
Action: Editor to revise the document and the IDL
09:00:34 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Editor
09:01:23 [dc]
Action: Lofton to revise the document and the IDL
09:01:24 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-9 - Revise the document and the IDL [on Lofton Henderson - due 2006-08-30].
09:02:12 [dc]
Action: Stuart to update the highlight test in the TS to reflect this decision
09:02:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-10 - Update the highlight test in the TS to reflect this decision [on Stuart Galt - due 2006-08-30].
09:04:03 [lofton]
(....morning break....)
09:04:12 [dc]
highlight behavior discussion compete
09:04:53 [lofton]
09:37:41 [dc]
Topic: Begin CR discusions
09:38:03 [thierry]
thierry has joined #webcgm
09:38:30 [lofton]
lofton has joined #webcgm
09:47:20 [krzysztof]
krzysztof has joined #webcgm
09:49:54 [dc]
item left over from first previous topic
09:50:45 [dc]
Should we process an erratum to deal with changes to URI/IRI for WebCGM 1.0?
09:51:49 [dc]
Chris - this is probably a good idea
09:51:55 [Chris]
09:52:55 [Chris]
sorry, thats the fe
09:52:56 [Chris]
09:53:32 [Chris]
09:54:42 [dc]
Action: Lofton to produce produce the 1.0 erratum for URI/IRI clarification and circulate to Wg
09:54:42 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-11 - Produce produce the 1.0 erratum for URI/IRI clarification and circulate to Wg [on Lofton Henderson - due 2006-08-30].
09:54:52 [dc]
09:55:26 [dc]
Topic: Begin CR discusions
09:56:13 [dc]
Timeline for CR Draft
09:57:40 [dc]
thierry - need a minimum data for exiting CR to put into the Status of This Document (SOTD)
09:57:59 [dc]
09:58:38 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #webcgm
09:58:43 [tmichel]
WebCGM 2.0 CR version cover page.
09:58:43 [tmichel]
10:07:42 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webcgm
10:08:12 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webcgm
10:08:24 [Chris]
zakim, remind me in 9 hours
10:08:24 [Zakim]
ok, Chris
10:10:11 [dc]
We will need to pass a resolution in the WG if we want to transition to CR
10:10:53 [dc]
At that point we will need a conference with the director for approval to publist the CR
10:11:20 [dc]
This conference requires a 1 week lead time
10:13:26 [dc]
Best case - we have a Friday resolution and the document ready to go at that time
10:15:47 [dc]
Best case conference with director would be Tuesday September 5
10:16:13 [dc]
One month duration would be October 5
10:18:02 [dc]
Before entering CR we would need a draft implementation report
10:19:32 [dc]
Transition requiements for CR
10:19:37 [dc]
11:42:34 [dc]
dc has joined #webcgm
11:46:26 [dc]
*dc test
11:50:54 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #webcgm
11:58:31 [Chris]
From SVG spec:
11:58:33 [Chris]
When two line segments meet at a sharp angle and miter joins have been specified for 'stroke-linejoin' , it is possible for the miter to extend far beyond the thickness of the line stroking the path. The 'stroke-miterlimit' imposes a limit on the ratio of the miter length to the 'stroke-width' . When the limit is exceeded, the join must be converted from a miter to a bevel.
11:58:49 [Chris]
11:58:49 [Chris]
The limit on the ratio of the miter length to the 'stroke-width' . The value of <miterlimit> must be a number greater than or equal to 1. Any other value shall be treated as unsupported and processed as if the property had not been specified.
11:58:50 [Chris]
The ratio of miter length (distance between the outer tip and the inner corner of the miter) to 'stroke-width' is directly related to the angle (theta) between the segments in user space by the formula:
11:58:50 [Chris]
miterLength / stroke-width = 1 / sin ( theta / 2 )
11:58:51 [Chris]
For example, a miter limit of 1.414 converts miters to bevels for theta less than 90 degrees, a limit of 4.0 converts them for theta less than approximately 29 degrees, and a limit of 10.0 converts them for theta less than approximately 11.5 degrees.
11:58:56 [Chris]
11:59:49 [BB]
BB has joined #webcgm
12:09:20 [thierry]
Topic: Initial telecon with implementors
12:12:23 [thierry]
Pass all tests exept 6 tests:
12:13:34 [thierry]
Interested in 2.0 test suite result, but we are now interest into 1.0 tes
12:14:11 [Chris]
linecap 1 and 2, linejoin
12:14:15 [Chris]
miter limit
12:14:22 [Chris]
2 pattern tests
12:14:39 [Chris]
sizing of the pattern is not correct
12:15:07 [Chris]
everyone seems to pass the values tomicrosoft gdi so they do not get the correct result
12:17:59 [thierry]
6 probllematic tests:
12:19:32 [thierry]
The old 1.0 static founctionalities are the one that could raise issues. We are OK with the 2.0 tests
12:19:58 [thierry]
Lofton: Can you send more info when you have more results ?
12:20:22 [Chris]
SVG has some animated miterlimit tests
12:20:23 [Chris]
12:20:31 [Chris]
12:20:42 [thierry]
Probably by tomorrow.
12:22:24 [thierry]
Oric: Will send the result tomorow:
12:24:34 [thierry]
Lofton: For the schedule we are thinking about a 30 day CR phase beginning sept 5th, ending Oct 5th
12:25:04 [thierry]
Lofton: Any adjustement we need to do in this time frame
12:26:16 [thierry]
Lofton we are already covered on the 2.0 tests
12:29:27 [thierry]
Dave: we have a problem on the following funct - InterpollatedInterior
12:29:41 [thierry]
Oric: We do not support this funct yet
12:31:12 [thierry]
Dave : It does work in our 1.0 implementation.
12:31:13 [Chris]
Larson 2.0 viewer uses OpenGL for rendering
12:32:15 [thierry]
Don: But not as good in our 2.0 viewer
12:32:41 [lofton]
lofton has joined #webcgm
12:33:30 [thierry]
Oric will send an Implementation to Chris and Lofton tomorrow
12:35:30 [lofton]
12:39:59 [thierry]
Ulrich has now left the telecon.
12:52:43 [thierry]
Topic: CR exit criteria review
12:55:23 [thierry]
12:57:45 [thierry]
Lofton: we could change the profile, losen for 1.0 functionalities that are issues
12:58:28 [thierry]
Chris: We can mention in the CR draft that these funct are at risk.
12:59:27 [thierry]
Don: We are going to stuff we have resolved a long time ago
12:59:51 [thierry]
Don: The DOM is THE objective
13:00:47 [thierry]
Don: Each vendor want to have a good static capabilities, but vendors really want to focus on a DOM
13:01:32 [thierry]
Chris: You can say it is required, if it is not correctly implemented
13:02:23 [thierry]
Lofton: We are not going to remove a 1.0 implementation because we do not have two perfert implementation
13:03:36 [thierry]
Chris: it is better to say in the Profile that it is optional than to have diffrent rendering in different viewers
13:04:59 [thierry]
Chris: we could have also some authoring guidelines
13:05:21 [thierry]
Benoit: Would be happy with relaxing the profile
13:05:58 [thierry]
Don: We could implement the Minorlimit
13:07:06 [thierry]
Don: we are 2 implementations; one for static and a new one handling Dynamic
13:07:47 [thierry]
Don: the real interoperability should be the DOM
13:08:31 [thierry]
Benoit: If chris says the only way is to change the profile, I am fine with that
13:09:43 [thierry]
Chris: W3C should probably have a sort of QA phase were we could use much more tests to test implementations
13:10:42 [thierry]
Chris: These would not be substantive changes, needing another Last Call
13:13:57 [thierry]
Lofton: to pass the patern tests we should have the size optional ?
13:14:44 [thierry]
Don: The gradient in the Interpolated Interior is the issue we have
13:15:18 [thierry]
Lofton: Need to be clear on which tests we have problems with
13:15:50 [thierry]
Lofton: Either two passes on each tests or downgrade the feature
13:19:20 [thierry]
Lofton: the feature at risk wil be the Interpolated Interior
13:19:41 [thierry]
Benoit: The Minor limit we could have that done in our implementation.
13:20:38 [thierry]
Benoit: If we have time we should look at the impact on the profile
13:21:01 [thierry]
Benoit: I was thinking about Minor limit, to to say so in the profile
13:22:02 [thierry]
Benoit: there is also an internal issue raised by Ulrich (Benoit will repport about that)
13:27:17 [thierry]
esolution: the candidate feature at risk are the pattern size aspect of deniable patterns and the performance requirements for Minor limit
13:27:31 [thierry]
Resolution: the candidate feature at risk are the pattern size aspect of deniable patterns and the performance requirements for Minor limit
13:28:39 [thierry]
Lofton: the feature Interpolated Interior is covered by the Larson 1.0 Implementation, so we are OK with this one
13:29:10 [thierry]
Benoit: we are pretty good on Unicode
13:42:04 [thierry]
Lofton: In the Test suite, there are 7 tests that are Chinese and Japanese, where two are IRI tests using Unicode caracters
14:27:25 [thierry]
Dieter : Pattern size - It is cearly a bug. We will fix it.
14:28:08 [thierry]
Dieter: Minor limit: We think we pass this test.
14:29:08 [thierry]
Chris: It depends if you are implementing a converter or a viewer
14:30:29 [thierry]
Dieter: It is only a screen issue but it is correctly printed on a PS printer
14:31:14 [thierry]
Dieter: actually a screen performance issue.
14:34:24 [thierry]
Dieter is fine with the DOM change about highlight resolution discussed this morning
14:36:59 [thierry]
Benoit: we would be inrested in a flash object method
14:37:36 [thierry]
Lofton: that would be for 2.1 ...
14:38:08 [thierry]
Lofton: we have preliminary features for 2.1 and 3.0
14:38:48 [thierry]
Dieter: I would like to make sure this can be added latter on
14:46:09 [dc]
dc has joined #webcgm
14:49:00 [thierry]
Lofton: At this point I would like to have the minimum changes, this is the case for the highlight methodFlashing
14:49:46 [thierry]
Don: I would also like to wait before adding it. It may be tight to other features
14:51:56 [thierry]
Dieter: We could replace true/flase with flash On/off in the clear hightlight method
14:54:13 [thierry]
CHris: instead or True/false we could use a numeric value, allowing to add another value latter on, not a bolean value.
14:54:30 [thierry]
Dieter: Yes that is a good suggestion
14:55:12 [thierry]
Lofton: Sounds fine with me.
14:56:26 [thierry]
Resolution: second parameter is called behavior, and the value is add
14:59:46 [thierry]
topic: (continue) CR process discussions
15:00:26 [thierry]
Lofton: will exit CR on 5th October
15:05:23 [thierry]
Lofton: This should allow to more to PR by end of October
15:06:22 [thierry]
Thierry: yes before Ac meeting in November. it would be usefull to advertize during the AC meeting wehere all AC Reps are present
15:07:33 [thierry]
15:08:14 [lofton]
lofton has joined #webcgm
15:08:21 [thierry]
15:14:56 [thierry]
s/Minor limit/mitor limit/g
15:17:44 [thierry]
s/mitor limit/miter limit/g
15:29:02 [thierry]
Thierry: The Cover page is ready. It does incorporate the publication date on sept 05. Ending CR date on oct 5th
15:29:39 [thierry]
Thierry : SOTD includes the exit criteria adopted by the WG and 3 features at risk
15:30:12 [thierry]
features at risk are : Pattern size aspect of definable patterns, Performance requirements for Miter limit., Text on a path
15:30:37 [thierry]
The cover page also fulfills the pubrules
15:31:00 [thierry]
Thierry: Lofton needs to copy and paste it into the CR draft
15:36:18 [thierry]
meeting ajourned
15:36:48 [thierry]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:36:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate thierry