SVG Working Group Teleconference -- 18 Sep 2008

<trackbot> Date: 18 September 2008

<ed> scribe: niklas

<ed> scribeNick: NH

Last Call comments

<ed> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/products/11

<ed> ISSUE-2054

<ed> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2054

ED: Is a comment from MathMl group?
... Is it possible to do anything about this now?

DS: We could put this as Core or Tiny

ED: We should move it to Core

DS: I'll move it to Core

<ed> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2055

ISSUE-2055

DS: Can Cameron look at this?

<anthony> scribe: anthony

<scribe> scribeNick: anthony

ED: Let's deffer this issue for a while
... until Cameron can comment on it

ISSUE-2056

ED: Should we link to CSS2.1 instead of CSS2.0

DS: I posted a comment to the list
... [Summary of comment posted]

AG: We wont be able to go to Rec if they are in CR?

ED: We can make a normative reference if they are in PR

DS: We should wait to hear back from them

ED: I would also like an answer to the first question that Doug asked
... in particular for SVG Tiny 1.2

<ed> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2057

ISSUE-2057

ED: This is an issue that Chris should look at
... according to the issue the text align property is incompatible with CSS
... I agree with the second part

DS: So in relation to the first point
... [Reads out spec]
... those are two different things
... so what she's asking is for us not to change the first part
... but to change the second part
... when a value unsupported by the UA is encountered, it must be treated as if it were not specified

ED: Sounds ok with me

NH: I think that's good

DS: For the second point

<shepazu> [["writing system being used" is not a good basis for alignment.]]

ED: She's right

DS: That's covered in the next issue
... The Third issue is

<shepazu> [[

<shepazu> "In SVG Tiny 1.2, vertical writing is not supported."

<shepazu> in http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/text.html#TextLayout that

<shepazu> last sentence should be removed.

<shepazu> ]]

DS: Some UAs may support it
... it doesn't harm anything by having that in there
... we could add a note that says "SVG Tiny 1.2 does not mandate vertical text"

AG: The spec says in first paragraph of 10.6.1 "In SVG Tiny 1.2, vertical writing is not supported"

DS: Yes, but by the time you get down to the part that's commented on it probably should be repeated
... if a user is just looking at this property then it's kind of confusing
... so we should repeat it there
... and mark the other section as being and SVG Tiny thing

<scribe> ACTION: Doug to add informative notes for ISSUE-2057 and reply to fantasai [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-svg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2200 - Add informative notes for ISSUE-2057 and reply to fantasai [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-09-25].

ED: So for the second part I'm just thinking we could talk about the reference orientation
... block progression direction

RESOLUTION: We agree to clarify sections that SVG Tiny 1.2 doesn't support

ISSUE-2058

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2058

ED: So in 1.1 Full we have not a direction but a writing mode attribute

<ed> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/text.html#SettingInlineProgressionDirection

<ed> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/text.html#RelationshipWithBiDirectionality

ED: We do have a direction as well

DS: Why was it dropped from Tiny?

ED: It's not in 1.1 Tiny either
... it is in 1.1 Basic

DS: [Reads out comment in issue]
... Sounds to me like there should be another value for direction
... which is auto
... but if we're going go according to SVG 1.1. the default would be ltr

ED: It's ltr in CSS2 as well

<ed> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#propdef-direction

DS: I can't see a reason not to support it
... except it's something we'd have to make a test for
... I'm wondering what it would take to pass this
... on tiny devices they frequently don't have control over how the font renders
... it's put to the font engine of the device
... because we don't want to have optional features they probably took this out

<shepazu> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2058

AE: So you're right it doesn't have a direction property
... but we don't support it right now
... because it wasn't in the spec
... it wasn't like one of those features that was requested by customers

NH: We don't support that

AE: It would be pretty hard to implement?

NH: That property that would make it harder
... for us Bidi text is a lower priority than others

AE: It depends on the Bidi algorithm that you're using
... it does add more burden to the Bidi
... if the API on the device doesn't give the ability to override the direction attirbute
... it's hard to do

ED: Just speaking for Opera we have this implemented already
... so we wouldn't have a problem putting it in
... wondering if it would be possible to add the default ltr
... or leave it as it is
... to guess the direction

DS: We could say for platforms that include Bidi support they should include rtl
... we would still make ltr the default
... or we could add a value that is auto
... and make that the default

ED: That would make us incompatible with CSS
... it sounds a bit strange to have different default values if it's specified in a property
... or a style

AE: Maybe we should run it by Chris
... the algorithm already depends on a base direction
... if some of the systems if it's relied on deep down, there is no way to override that

NH: For SVG font's it would be a must

AE: They could still, but the actual Bidi algorithm could be in the platform
... because the algorithm is complicated
... and you wouldn't want to rewrite it
... putting something in there saying if the platform supports explicitly then direction it must be supported

<scribe> ACTION: Doug to follow up with fantasai and ask her if a platform specific word her would be sufficient to the comment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-svg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2201 - Follow up with fantasai and ask her if a platform specific word her would be sufficient to the comment [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-09-25].

<ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Sep/0050.html

<ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Sep/0052.html

ED: I made a brief comment on the issue

NH: We implement it according to the current specification
... doesn't matter for us we can easily change that

ED: I think it makes more sense to align with 1.1

AE: I'd agree

<ed> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/svg/shapes-rect-03-t.svg

ED: Plus the test is approved
... and accepted

AE: Bitflash changed to align with the spec

ED: We did in the end decide to keep with the 1.1 rules
... it is possible that someone had an action to change it

<shepazu> ISSUE-2059

<scribe> ACTION: Erik to change the Tiny 1.2 specification to match the 1.1 specification and to reply to Dr Hoffmann [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-svg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2202 - Change the Tiny 1.2 specification to match the 1.1 specification and to reply to Dr Hoffmann [on Erik Dahlström - due 2008-09-25].

Test Suite

ED: Ikivo has some comments on the validity of the tests
... is this something we want to fix at the test fest or something that we should fix before?

AE: I think this is where this is interesting
... if tests change whether implementations pass or fail then it becomes a mad dash to fix things

NH: I think it's between 10 - 20 tests

ED: I think it would be good to have it in advance
... we can still make small fixes

<shepazu> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2055

- DRAFT -

SVG Working Group Teleconference

18 Sep 2008

Attendees

Contents

Last Call comments

Test Suite

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output