IRC log of svg on 2008-10-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:36:07 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #svg
08:36:07 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-svg-irc
08:36:09 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs public
08:36:09 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #svg
08:36:11 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
08:36:11 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()4:30AM scheduled to start 6 minutes ago
08:36:12 [trackbot]: Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
08:36:12 [trackbot]: Date: 17 October 2008
08:36:26 [anthony]: trackbot, code?
08:36:26 [trackbot]: Sorry, anthony, I don't understand 'trackbot, code?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
08:36:30 [anthony]: trackbot, pass code?
08:36:30 [trackbot]: Sorry, anthony, I don't understand 'trackbot, pass code?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
08:36:45 [anthony]: zakim, code?
08:36:45 [Zakim]: the conference code is 7841 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), anthony
08:38:03 [ed_work]: heh
08:39:07 [Zakim]: GA_SVGWG()4:30AM has now started
08:39:15 [Zakim]: +??P0
08:39:20 [ed_work]: Zakim, ?? is me
08:39:20 [Zakim]: +ed_work; got it
08:39:55 [Zakim]: +??P1
08:40:04 [anthony]: Zakim, ??P1 is me
08:40:04 [Zakim]: +anthony; got it
08:41:46 [anthony]: NH, you there?
08:42:59 [NH]: Sorry I wont be able to join before ~12.30 CET
08:43:12 [anthony]: ahh ok - no worries
08:44:39 [anthony]: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/animate.html#AnimateTransformElement
08:54:12 [Zakim]: -ed_work
08:55:01 [Zakim]: +??P0
08:55:41 [ed_work]: http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/script.html#HandlerElement
08:56:49 [ed_]: ed_ has joined #svg
08:59:03 [anthony]: ISSUE-2055?
08:59:04 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2055 -- Define 'evt'/'event' relationship more formally -- RAISED
08:59:04 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2055
09:01:59 [ed_work]: ed_work has joined #svg
09:03:07 [ed_work]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2008OctDec/0160.html
09:06:10 [ed_work]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2306
09:07:44 [Zakim]: -??P0
09:07:46 [Zakim]: -anthony
09:07:46 [Zakim]: GA_SVGWG()4:30AM has ended
09:07:47 [Zakim]: Attendees were ed_work, anthony
10:41:42 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #svg
10:44:08 [ed_work]: time for another telcon round?
10:44:21 [ed_work]: trackbot, start telcon
10:44:23 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs public
10:44:23 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #svg
10:44:25 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
10:44:25 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()4:30AM scheduled to start 134 minutes ago
10:44:26 [trackbot]: Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
10:44:26 [trackbot]: Date: 17 October 2008
10:45:02 [Zakim]: GA_SVGWG()4:30AM has now started
10:45:09 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
10:45:13 [ed_work]: Zakim, [ is me
10:45:13 [Zakim]: +ed_work; got it
10:46:35 [Zakim]: +??P1
10:46:47 [anthony]: Zakim, ??P1 is me
10:46:47 [Zakim]: +anthony; got it
10:46:55 [Zakim]: +NH
10:51:12 [anthony]: Zakim, call Doug
10:51:12 [Zakim]: I am sorry, anthony; I do not know a number for Doug
10:51:23 [anthony]: Zakim, call Doug_Schepers
10:51:23 [Zakim]: I am sorry, anthony; I do not know a number for Doug_Schepers
10:51:35 [anthony]: Zakim, call +Doug
10:51:35 [Zakim]: I am sorry, anthony; I do not know a number for +Doug
10:53:27 [anthony]: Zakim, call doug
10:53:27 [Zakim]: I am sorry, anthony; I do not know a number for doug
10:55:01 [Zakim]: -ed_work
10:55:03 [Zakim]: -NH
10:55:03 [Zakim]: -anthony
10:55:03 [Zakim]: GA_SVGWG()4:30AM has ended
10:55:04 [Zakim]: Attendees were [IPcaller], ed_work, anthony, NH
11:04:10 [anthony]: Hey ed_work, is this too wordy for ISSUE-2098?
11:04:13 [anthony]: If a script within the <a href='#ScriptElement'><span class='element-name'>'script'</span></a> element causes
11:04:15 [anthony]: the element to be removed, the script must continue to be execution as normal.
11:05:03 [anthony]: I have come up with shorter wording
11:05:51 [ed_work]: Modifying or removing the script content (or element) after the script has started its execution has no effect on the script execution.
11:06:08 [ed_work]: isn't there something similar to that already?
11:06:33 [ed_work]: perhaps "must have no effect"
11:07:50 [anthony]: ok, looks fine to me
11:08:06 [anthony]: I couldn't see anything in the scripting chapter about this
11:08:36 [ed_work]: I have a draft response to cyril on ISSUE-2134 now, but maybe we should go through it before I send it off
11:09:03 [anthony]: sure
11:10:55 [anthony]: other than looking in the scripting chapter is there anywhere else you can think of that I should check?
11:11:33 [ed_work]: impl. requirements? intro?
11:11:48 [ed_work]: conformance?
11:15:39 [anthony]: check those... nothing
11:16:09 [anthony]: I'll add your wording into the scripting chapter
11:39:56 [erm]: erm has joined #svg
11:41:18 [ed_work]: time for another telcon then
11:41:44 [NH]: ok
11:41:46 [Zakim]: GA_SVGWG()4:30AM has now started
11:41:53 [Zakim]: +??P0
11:42:08 [ed_work]: Zakim, ? is me
11:42:08 [Zakim]: +ed_work; got it
11:42:40 [Zakim]: +NH
11:43:11 [Zakim]: +Doug_Schepers
11:44:38 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
11:44:42 [aemmons]: aemmons has joined #svg
11:44:56 [anthony]: Zakim, [IP is me
11:44:56 [Zakim]: +anthony; got it
11:45:10 [Zakim]: +??P4
11:45:15 [aemmons]: zakim, ??p4 is me
11:45:15 [Zakim]: +aemmons; got it
11:45:56 [anthony]: scribe: anthony
11:46:07 [anthony]: chair: Andrew Emmons
11:47:54 [ed_work]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0183.html (sorry, missed to put in the issue/action)
11:48:18 [ed_work]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0182.html
11:49:05 [anthony]: ED: Those issues were done
11:49:57 [anthony]: Topic: ISSUE-2134
11:50:00 [anthony]: ISSUE-2134?
11:50:00 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2134 -- Ambiguities in the 'use' element -- RAISED
11:50:00 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2134
11:50:23 [anthony]: ED: Wording taken from 1.1 for the first bit
11:50:33 [anthony]: ... I would prefer not to change anything
11:50:38 [anthony]: ... wording is simplified
11:50:55 [anthony]: ... almost all of the use element is taken from 1.1
11:51:44 [anthony]: ... I think the first paragraph is a high level description
11:51:51 [anthony]: ... at least that's how I read it
11:52:27 [anthony]: ... I'd prefer to leave it in
11:52:50 [anthony]: AE: I think it make sense keeping it as it is
11:52:54 [anthony]: ... it's not a major issue
11:53:01 [anthony]: ED: Second paragraph of the issue
11:53:13 [anthony]: ... is it's not according to the spec
11:53:21 [anthony]: ... I think it's just a miss reading
11:53:27 [anthony]: ... the Third paragraph
11:53:38 [anthony]: ... is this strange half sentence
11:53:47 [anthony]: ... and it was added in response to our last LC
11:53:57 [anthony]: ... it's suppose to be joined to the bullet point list
11:54:12 [anthony]: AG: I think we should merge that last bit with the bullet point
11:54:17 [ed_work]: "A 'use' element has the same visual effect as if the 'use' element were replaced by the following generated content" + "except for resolution of relative IRI references as noted above and until the referenced elements are modified."
11:55:31 [anthony]: DS: As noted above should be as noted below
11:55:41 [anthony]: ED: The XML resolving base is still above
11:55:57 [ed_work]: xml:base resolving
11:56:25 [anthony]: ED: about 4/5 paragraphs above
11:58:03 [anthony]: AE: If could just get rid of the "as noted above"
11:58:06 [anthony]: DS: And say as noted
11:59:01 [anthony]: ... I'd suggest edit to remove that sentence above
11:59:07 [anthony]: ... make it into one sentence
11:59:42 [anthony]: ED: [Suggests change]
11:59:59 [anthony]: ... next thing that is being asked for is clarification of examples
12:00:28 [anthony]: ... and he's asking what's happening with id's and xml:id's
12:00:55 [anthony]: ... I'd prefer to leave the example as is
12:01:30 [anthony]: ... I think it would be very confusing showing the cloning of ids
12:01:36 [anthony]: ... because that doesn't really happen anyway
12:01:39 [anthony]: AE: I agree
12:01:45 [anthony]: ... it's just a shadow tree anyway
12:05:00 [anthony]: ED: In any case I'd prefer to leave the examples as they are
12:05:11 [anthony]: ... Image use base had some errors
12:05:15 [anthony]: ... so I removed those
12:06:00 [anthony]: ... the last part is find the process xml is transfered
12:07:10 [anthony]: AE: linking-refs-205
12:07:26 [anthony]: ... I'd review it first before putting it into your response
12:08:25 [anthony]: Topic: ISSUE-2094
12:08:30 [anthony]: ISSUE-2094?
12:08:30 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2094 -- accessing rules for traitAccess -- RAISED
12:08:30 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2094
12:08:48 [anthony]: ED: Just need to decide on what to do with traitAccess on animation elements
12:09:47 [anthony]: ... currently we throw exceptions if your try to modify traits on animation elements
12:09:58 [anthony]: ... only if they are in the tree already
12:10:24 [anthony]: AE: I think it's significantly simplified the UA
12:10:37 [anthony]: ... but it's not just the ID it's all the attributes of the animation
12:11:00 [anthony]: ... sure the xml:id is just one, but I do believe it simplifies it
12:11:09 [ed_work]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0055.html
12:11:30 [anthony]: ... removing it will change what implementations have to do
12:11:54 [anthony]: ED: I would disagree with his last comment
12:12:20 [anthony]: AE: There are many other attributes on the animation element
12:12:44 [anthony]: ED: I got to the bit about changing the document while it's parsed
12:13:12 [anthony]: ... and I'm not sure it's stated anywhere when you evaluate or re-evaluate an attribute
12:13:28 [anthony]: ... I'm pretty sure it says once it's been resolved you can't change it
12:13:32 [anthony]: DS: I think it does
12:13:51 [anthony]: ED: It's an edge case, and I wouldn't count on it working
12:14:04 [anthony]: DS: What's the minimum thing we can do to resolve this?
12:14:13 [anthony]: ED: Say that it's forbidden for good reasons
12:15:23 [anthony]: AE: His question is why do we have the restrictions
12:15:34 [anthony]: RESOLUTION: We will not change the animation restrictions
12:16:26 [anthony]: RATIONAL: Implementation experience shows that it simplifies implementations even when considering xml:id
12:17:09 [anthony]: ACTION: Emmons to Reply to ISSUE-2094
12:17:09 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-2316 - Reply to ISSUE-2094 [on Andrew Emmons - due 2008-10-24].
12:18:52 [anthony]: Topic: ISSUE-2089
12:18:54 [anthony]: ISSUE-2089?
12:18:54 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2089 -- animateTransform and underlying value -- OPEN
12:18:54 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2089
12:20:13 [anthony]: DS: We could say this behavior is not defined so don't use it
12:20:24 [anthony]: ... it leaves it open to being defined in the future
12:27:12 [shepazu]: [[
12:27:14 [shepazu]: The 'problem' with the underlying value for
12:27:14 [shepazu]: animateTransform is none, if the sentence is
12:27:14 [shepazu]: simply skipped. If required, one can replace
12:27:15 [shepazu]: it with the sentence, that currently the behaviour
12:27:15 [shepazu]: for to-animateTransfrom is explictly unspecified.
12:27:15 [shepazu]: Then the reader is informed about the remaining
12:27:17 [shepazu]: problem and will not start to write tough
12:27:19 [shepazu]: tests as I did.
12:27:22 [shepazu]: ]]
12:28:03 [shepazu]: [[
12:28:06 [shepazu]: [[
12:28:10 [shepazu]: Therefore, if critical things are specified to be
12:28:10 [shepazu]: 'unspecified', implementors do not have to change
12:28:10 [shepazu]: the current behaviour of programs currently and
12:28:10 [shepazu]: authors are at least warned, that they must not
12:28:11 [shepazu]: rely on anything for these remaining issues.
12:28:11 [shepazu]: It cannot be expected, that all problems are
12:28:13 [shepazu]: perfectly solved already now, but it is no use to
12:28:15 [shepazu]: leave it in an unconsistent state to make sketchy
12:28:17 [shepazu]: readers believe, that the work is already done ..
12:28:19 [shepazu]: ]]
12:29:12 [anthony]: DS: You can't specify every behavior
12:29:29 [anthony]: ... there are cases where we leave things up to the implementers
12:30:29 [anthony]: ... we're not saying that an implementation can't do it
12:32:44 [anthony]: AG: If we remove the sentence then we have to remove the bullet points I think
12:32:48 [ed_work]: Zakim, who is noisy?
12:32:59 [Zakim]: ed_work, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ed_work (4%), Doug_Schepers (19%)
12:33:22 [anthony]: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/animate.html#AnimateTransformElement
12:35:50 [anthony]: DS: Say instead, this behavior is unspecified in Tiny 1.2 and will be defined in a later specification
12:36:06 [anthony]: ED: If we remove the sentence we should say it's undefined and we will define it later
12:38:56 [anthony]: DS: Before you make the change and say we will take his advice and say that this behavior is unspecified
12:39:10 [anthony]: ... and say it means removing this entire section and let us know if that's the case
12:39:14 [anthony]: ... and quote the section
12:40:46 [anthony]: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/animate.html#AnimationAttributesAndProperties
12:41:28 [anthony]: ED: It has a note for additive in that table already
12:41:37 [anthony]: ... at least in the working draft that was published
12:42:56 [anthony]: ... we already have a not in the table there
12:43:19 [anthony]: ... he's suggesting to mention the underlying value in that sentence
12:46:18 [anthony]: Topic: ISSUE-2055
12:46:22 [anthony]: ISSUE-2055?
12:46:22 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2055 -- Define 'evt'/'event' relationship more formally -- RAISED
12:46:22 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2055
12:46:27 [anthony]: ED: I did some changes to the spec
12:46:50 [ed_work]: http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/script.html#HandlerElement
12:47:22 [anthony]: ED: I removed the wording saying this keyword was bound
12:47:30 [anthony]: ... it was an old action on Cameron
12:47:35 [anthony]: ... so it's removed now
12:47:54 [anthony]: ... and I also added in the aliasing explicitly in the example
12:48:07 [anthony]: ... I think this is closer to what people are doing
12:48:20 [anthony]: ... in implementations are doing currently
12:48:35 [anthony]: ... not sure if everyone treats it as function either
12:48:40 [anthony]: ... I know we don't
12:48:56 [anthony]: AE: You mean the 'this' keyword
12:49:01 [anthony]: ED: Correct
12:49:17 [anthony]: DS: If there is no 'this' key word aren't we moving away from HTML?
12:49:27 [anthony]: ED: HMTL doesn't do events
12:49:41 [anthony]: .... we have tests for both arguments and this
12:49:45 [anthony]: ... there were not passes
12:50:05 [anthony]: ... one thing to not here, is Opera doesn't currently handle it as a function
12:50:14 [anthony]: ... you can't break out of the function
12:50:21 [anthony]: ... it's just like script tag
12:50:49 [anthony]: ... I'd like to brainstorm how to reword this
12:51:06 [anthony]: ... for thus it's like script content block but with the evt available
12:51:18 [anthony]: ... but I'm not sure how to describe that accurately
12:51:31 [anthony]: s/evt/evt and event/
12:51:40 [anthony]: AE: How is the script element described
12:51:48 [anthony]: ED: Probably not very much I'd guess
12:52:51 [anthony]: ... I read the thread there and all the discussion
12:53:07 [anthony]: ... and I didn't agree with the more ECMA script equivalent
12:53:20 [anthony]: ... I couldn't get that to work and it wasn't any more clear
12:53:33 [anthony]: AE: Could we say it's conceptually like a function object
12:53:40 [anthony]: NH: We have it as a function
12:54:09 [anthony]: ED: Which is why I'd like to have it as a smallest subset possible
12:54:37 [anthony]: AE: Maybe say "Conceptually behave as if"
12:54:42 [anthony]: DS: I agree with Andrew
12:55:08 [anthony]: ... and we could say in the reply that we realise that this may not be complete but we will work
12:55:22 [anthony]: ... with webaps and HTML to define it better
12:55:44 [anthony]: ED: Another change we could make is we don't require access to the arguments property
12:56:01 [anthony]: ... and in a later spec say we do require it
12:56:28 [anthony]: NH: Will this give us better conformance to the test suite?
12:56:47 [anthony]: DS: Problem is this is a real problem with SVG, it's incompatible with other specs
12:57:07 [anthony]: ...we need to resolve it in a way that allows better integration later on
12:57:23 [anthony]: ED: I did make another change there
12:57:38 [anthony]: ... and said that the event object is the event and evt is an alias
12:58:19 [anthony]: NH: Why take it out this release and put it in the next version?
12:58:30 [anthony]: ED: Because implementations fail the tests
12:58:45 [anthony]: ... I think at this point we should make it easy for implementations to pass
12:59:52 [anthony]: AE: What ED said there about not having the args available
13:00:31 [anthony]: ... for Tiny
13:00:38 [anthony]: ... we should add that wording
13:01:03 [anthony]: ED: Ikivo would still be conform
13:02:22 [ed_work]: so, resolution is to change this sentence:
13:02:23 [ed_work]: In ECMAScript, the contents of the 'handler' element behave as if they are the contents of a new Function object, created as shown:
13:02:30 [ed_work]: to this:
13:02:40 [ed_work]: In ECMAScript, the contents of the 'handler' element behave conceptually as if they are the contents of a new Function object, created as shown:
13:03:03 [anthony]: DS: Does that resolve the issue?
13:03:25 [anthony]: ED: The issue itself is asking for a more formal way of defining event and event variables
13:03:29 [ed_work]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Sep/0061.html
13:03:58 [anthony]: ED: In the email he says to do what I've pretty much done there
13:04:05 [anthony]: ... so I think he'll be satisfied with this change
13:04:29 [anthony]: ... I will fix the conceptually there and respond to whoever raised the issue initially
13:07:44 [shepazu]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2008OctDec/0156.html
13:08:14 [shepazu]: s/whoever raised the issue initially/the original commenter/
13:10:50 [anthony]: Topic: ISSUE-2083
13:10:52 [anthony]: ISSUE-2083?
13:10:52 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2083 -- Paced animation and complex types -- RAISED
13:10:52 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2083
13:15:27 [shepazu]: [[
13:15:29 [shepazu]: Current problems with paced animation were
13:15:29 [shepazu]: introduced mainly with some funny formulas in
13:15:30 [shepazu]: SVGT 1.2, not before.
13:15:30 [shepazu]: If SVGT1.2 implementors do not want to change their
13:15:30 [shepazu]: current implementations, one can simply
13:15:31 [shepazu]: 1) remove the formulas for lists and path-data
13:15:32 [shepazu]: 2) note, that the behavior is explictly unspecified
13:15:34 [shepazu]: 3) discourage authors from using calcMode paced for
13:15:36 [shepazu]: other constructions than scalars and colors currently,
13:15:38 [shepazu]: because due to nonsense in SVG1.1 and in
13:15:40 [shepazu]: some implementations, the behavior is unpredictable,
13:15:42 [shepazu]: which also applies for animateTransform, if backwards
13:15:44 [shepazu]: compatibility is important.
13:15:46 [shepazu]: 4) encourage authors to calculate keyTimes for
13:15:48 [shepazu]: calcMode linear for the critical unspecified cases,
13:15:50 [shepazu]: to get a predictable behavior, because this is
13:15:52 [shepazu]: always possible to get the behavior that they would expect that 'paced'
13:15:54 [shepazu]: might mean in their specific case.
13:15:56 [shepazu]: This has the big advantage, that readers are warned
13:15:58 [shepazu]: and do not start to use the wrong formulas or even
13:16:00 [shepazu]: worse to waste their time to understand, how they
13:16:03 [shepazu]: are related to calcMode paced, as I did.
13:16:04 [shepazu]: ]]
13:17:05 [anthony]: AE: Removing the formulas for list and path data
13:17:17 [anthony]: ... is subtle way of fixing some of the issues
13:17:32 [anthony]: ... doing number 1 suggestion is the best way to go
13:17:49 [shepazu]: s/... doing number 1 suggestion is the best way to go//
13:18:19 [anthony]: DS: This is very sensible
13:20:49 [anthony]: ... we should at least warn authors
13:22:45 [anthony]: ACTION: Anthony to make changes as suggested by DOH
13:22:46 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-2317 - Make changes as suggested by DOH [on Anthony Grasso - due 2008-10-24].
13:25:00 [shepazu]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2084
13:25:05 [anthony]: Topic: ISSUE-2084
13:25:15 [anthony]: DS: I have an action onit
13:25:21 [anthony]: s/onit/on it/
13:25:35 [anthony]: DS: I have some more input on it
13:26:04 [anthony]: ... Dr Hoffmann didn't like the extended syntax thing
13:27:34 [anthony]: DS: When he says extended syntax I think he's talking about the trailing semicolon
13:28:56 [shepazu]: http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/animate.html#ValueAttributes
13:29:08 [shepazu]: [[
13:29:10 [shepazu]: For compatibility with existing content, SVG extends the syntax of this attribute to allow a trailing semicolon (with optional surrounding whitespace) without creating a new value in the list. Thus, for example, "10; 20; 30;" has the same meaning as "10; 20; 30" and specifies a list of three values. Note that a zero-length string is a valid value for IRIs, which means that to use such a value as the final value in a 'values' attribute an addition semicolon i
13:29:12 [shepazu]: ]]
13:29:29 [shepazu]: [[
13:29:38 [shepazu]: For compatibility with existing content, SVG extends the syntax of this attribute to allow a trailing semicolon (with optional surrounding whitespace) without creating a new value in the list. Thus, for example, "10; 20; 30;" has the same meaning as "10; 20; 30" and specifies a list of three values. Note that a zero-length string is a valid value for IRIs, which means that to use such a value as the final value in a 'values' attribute an addition semicolon i
13:30:32 [anthony]: DS: What if we replaced with something like
13:32:04 [ed_work]: trackbot, close ACTION-2303
13:32:05 [trackbot]: ACTION-2303 Take over the scope-chain removal action from heycam and address ISSUE-2055 closed
13:32:25 [shepazu]: "For compatibility with existing content, a user agent may allow a trailing semicolon... . In later specifications, this behavior may be more strictly defined, so authors and content generation tools are discouraged from using trailing semicolons."
13:33:04 [anthony]: DS: Instead of mandating that this is the case we'll say the above
13:33:11 [anthony]: ... but we might change this later on
13:36:03 [Zakim]: -aemmons
13:36:32 [anthony]: RESOLUTION: We will change the trailing semicolon syntax to allow but not mandate the trailing semicolon and discourage its use
13:38:11 [shepazu]: Action: shepazu to change the trailing semicolon syntax to allow but not mandate the trailing semicolon and discourage its use, per ISSUE-2084
13:38:11 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-2318 - Change the trailing semicolon syntax to allow but not mandate the trailing semicolon and discourage its use, per ISSUE-2084 [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-10-24].
13:39:17 [shepazu]: ISSUE-2093?
13:39:17 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2093 -- 16.2.9 by 'identity' -- OPEN
13:39:17 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2093
13:39:22 [anthony]: Topic: ISSUE-2093
13:41:32 [Zakim]: -anthony
13:42:03 [Zakim]: +??P3
13:42:20 [anthony]: Zakim, ??P3 is me
13:42:20 [Zakim]: +anthony; got it
13:43:18 [anthony]: DS: I can follow up with him on this
13:43:27 [anthony]: ED: Seems like an easy change
13:43:39 [shepazu]: [[
13:43:43 [shepazu]: The 'problem' with the by animation is none for
13:43:43 [shepazu]: the future, because this is already clarified in
13:43:44 [shepazu]: SMIL3, therefore any comments about this can
13:43:44 [shepazu]: be completely skipped in SVG, especially because
13:43:44 [shepazu]: in SMIL 2 and 3 it is precisely described, that and how
13:43:44 [shepazu]: from-to, from-by and by animations are equivalent
13:43:46 [shepazu]: to the related values animations.
13:43:48 [shepazu]: ]]
13:45:51 [anthony]: ACTION: Doug to Follow up on ISSUE-2093
13:45:51 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-2319 - Follow up on ISSUE-2093 [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-10-24].
13:46:30 [shepazu]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/products/11
13:47:10 [anthony]: Topic: ISSUE-2130
13:47:16 [anthony]: ISSUE-2130?
13:47:16 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2130 -- Basic Data Types section needs clarifications -- OPEN
13:47:16 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2130
13:48:47 [shepazu]: ISSUE-2134?
13:48:48 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2134 -- Ambiguities in the 'use' element -- RAISED
13:48:48 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2134
13:49:12 [shepazu]: ISSUE-2137?
13:49:12 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2137 -- Add clarification about begin time for canvas negotiation -- RAISED
13:49:12 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2137
13:49:38 [anthony]: ED: I don't think it happens on parse time
13:49:42 [anthony]: ... but I could be wrong
13:50:10 [anthony]: DS: So it would happen on rendering?
13:50:18 [anthony]: ED: Before rendering
13:50:39 [anthony]: DS: Why don't we say that Tiny doesn't specify this but we will clarify this in later specification
13:50:42 [anthony]: ED: Sure
13:52:19 [anthony]: RESOLUTION: The negotiation time is implementation specific
13:52:36 [shepazu]: Action: shepazu to reply to ISSUE-2137 saying this is implementation-specific
13:52:36 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-2320 - Reply to ISSUE-2137 saying this is implementation-specific [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-10-24].
13:52:41 [anthony]: Topic: ISSUE-2139
13:52:43 [anthony]: ISSUE-2139?
13:52:43 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2139 -- Add note regarding eRR attribute and prefetch element -- RAISED
13:52:43 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2139
13:53:05 [anthony]: DS: Was discussed to days ago
13:53:29 [shepazu]: ISSUE-2140?
13:53:29 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2140 -- Ambiguities in mediaSize -- RAISED
13:53:29 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2140
13:53:40 [anthony]: Topic: ISSUE-2140
13:55:09 [anthony]: AG: I had a quick look at this
13:55:24 [anthony]: DS: I think what we mean is with regards to file size of the media
13:55:50 [anthony]: AG: Change required?
13:56:03 [shepazu]: Clarify this means that ""Defines how much of the media to fetch in bytes with regards to the file size of the media."
13:57:34 [anthony]: ACTION: Doug to Clarify the meaning function in ISSUE-2140
13:57:34 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-2321 - Clarify the meaning function in ISSUE-2140 [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-10-24].
13:58:03 [shepazu]: ISSUE-2145?
13:58:04 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2145 -- Clarify media timeline and document timeline -- RAISED
13:58:04 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2145
13:58:17 [shepazu]: ISSUE-2147?
13:58:17 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2147 -- Section on externally referenced documents confusing -- OPEN
13:58:17 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2147
13:58:26 [shepazu]: ISSUE-2149?
13:58:26 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2149 -- Paced interpolation of polygons -- RAISED
13:58:26 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2149
13:58:36 [shepazu]: ISSUE-2150?
13:58:36 [trackbot]: ISSUE-2150 -- Clarify 'required' attribute -- OPEN
13:58:36 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2150
14:04:48 [anthony]: ACTION: Doug to Respond to ISSUE-2149
14:04:48 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-2322 - Respond to ISSUE-2149 [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-10-24].
14:05:22 [Zakim]: -NH
14:05:38 [Zakim]: -Doug_Schepers
14:05:40 [Zakim]: -ed_work
14:05:42 [Zakim]: -anthony
14:05:44 [Zakim]: GA_SVGWG()4:30AM has ended
14:05:45 [Zakim]: Attendees were ed_work, NH, Doug_Schepers, [IPcaller], anthony, aemmons
14:06:03 [anthony]: Zakim, bye
14:06:03 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #svg
14:06:10 [anthony]: RRSAgent, make minutes
14:06:10 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/17-svg-minutes.html anthony