11:30:00 RRSAgent has joined #svg 11:30:00 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-svg-irc 11:30:01 RRSAgent, make logs public 11:30:03 Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG 11:30:03 ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()6:30AM scheduled to start now 11:30:04 Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference 11:30:04 Date: 04 November 2008 11:30:31 GA_SVGWG()6:30AM has now started 11:30:38 +??P0 11:30:42 zakim, ??p0 is me 11:30:42 +aemmons; got it 11:31:04 +??P1 11:31:11 Zakim, ??P1 is me 11:31:11 +anthony; got it 11:31:35 +[IPcaller] 11:31:49 Zakim, [IP is me 11:31:49 +ed; got it 11:32:05 NH_ has joined #svg 11:32:09 +??P3 11:32:11 Zakim, ??P3 is me 11:32:11 +heycam; got it 11:33:21 +Doug_Schepers 11:33:24 +Andrew_Sledd 11:34:09 Zakim, Andrew_Sledd is me 11:34:09 +NH_; got it 11:37:41 Scribe: anthony 11:37:48 Chair: Andrew Emmons 11:38:37 Topic: Tiny 1.2 PR 11:38:47 AE: Any objections to Tiny 1.2 going to PR? 11:38:55 ALL: None 11:39:34 Resolution: We will advance to Proposed Recommendation and then to Recommendation status 11:40:32 s/We will advance/The SVG WG agrees to request that SVG 1.2 Tiny be advanced/ 11:41:15 Topic: ISSUE-2084 11:41:17 ISSUE-2084? 11:41:17 ISSUE-2084 -- 16.2.9 values attribute 'extended syntax' -- CLOSED 11:41:17 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2084 11:41:39 DS: Dr Hoffmann didn't really like this one 11:42:07 ... I've marked it as satisfied 11:42:22 ... I guess it's not that he's satisfied 11:42:28 ... he's willing to live with it 11:42:34 ... but he'd rather it removed 11:42:45 ... is it ok to remove this part? 11:42:53 AE: No it's ok 11:43:03 ... I see there are number of responses on this 11:44:05 DS: I guess the section in question starts with "compatibility with existing content" and ends with "discouraged from using trailing semicolon" 11:44:16 ... I can I remove the whole thing 11:44:19 ... in values? 11:44:36 ... will this have a bad impact on existing content? 11:44:43 NH: I think we can live with that 11:44:49 ... I don't think it's a big issue 11:45:32 Resolution: We will remove the section on of the specification allowing trailing semicolon 11:46:05 DS: I can do that now 11:46:28 Topic: Disposition of Comments 11:46:33 http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/doc-svgt12.html 11:46:40 DS: There's the link 11:46:43 ... if you scroll down 11:46:48 ... you'll see on the right hand side 11:46:52 ... we had 97 issues 11:47:02 ... and 97 satisfied 11:47:14 ... and this is the true recording 11:47:25 ... we worked with everyone to get a resolution 11:50:50 http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/SVGT12-ImpReport.html 11:51:02 DS: This is also important 11:51:10 ... there are a number of tests we had to drop at the last minute 11:51:15 ... for various reasons 11:51:26 ... we have spotty coverage on some of them 11:51:37 ... but we have at least 2 passes for every approved test 11:51:55 ... and a big thank you to the implementors 11:52:10 NH: I found a few mistakes in some tests 11:52:27 DS: I think we should wait a week before we look at those 11:52:46 ... we'll be updating it at the time we go to recommendation 11:52:58 ... we should update this with more tests 11:53:03 ... and an updated corverage 11:53:10 ... I'd like to have at least 500 tests 11:53:36 NH: Is it possible for us to get our new implementation for this release? 11:53:55 DS: I'm not sure. It is possible 11:54:07 NH: I can send you our player with the tests 11:54:17 DS: Ok, I'll attempt to do that 11:54:23 ... can you do that today? 11:54:27 NH: In a few hours 11:54:34 DS: It's going to be passes right? 11:54:37 NH: Yes 11:54:48 DS: Is it for Mac or Windows? 11:54:50 NH: Windows 11:55:13 DS: I guess there are only 15 or 20 that you're not passing 11:55:25 NH: I think it's more 11:55:46 DS: Please send me the implementation 11:55:56 NH: I'll send you the implementation with a list of the tests we've been fixing 11:56:03 ... and Bitflash can do the same 11:56:16 ... and I'll see about adding them to the matrix 11:57:00 Topic: Telcon 11:57:11 s/Telcon/Telcon Times/ 11:57:12 http://mcc.id.au/2007/03/telcon/ 11:58:51 CM: Chris is set to +2 11:58:56 ... I'll change him to +1 11:59:05 ... he's in the same timezone as ED and NH 12:00:03 http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=188 12:00:06 DS: I think my zone is -5 12:01:08 ... we could move to a Monday telcon 12:01:26 ... since we're done with SVG Tiny we should examine what we are doing with telcons 12:02:32 ... I propose as we've been discussing for the last several months 12:02:37 ... rather than work on 1.2 Full 12:02:42 ... that we work on 2.0 core 12:02:51 ... which will be a reformulation of SVG 12:03:02 ... and more suitable for integration for HTML and XHTML 12:03:19 ... and we should focus on bringing all the good stuff from SVG Tiny 12:03:36 ... we wouldn't exactly start from scratch 12:03:48 ... I'd like to rearrange it because it's a bit confusing 12:04:00 ... I propose that one call be devoted be focused on 2.0 core 12:04:10 ... and other core be focused on specific modules 12:04:17 ... how does that sound to everybody? 12:04:46 ... do people think that working 2.0 core is what we should work on? 12:05:03 CM: I think it would be good to work on something like core 12:05:10 ED: I think it depends on the scope of core 12:05:33 ... I think it would be useful that maps to 1.1 but has the good things from Tiny 12:05:45 AE: Is it useful having two tracks having Full and Core? 12:06:01 ... and we don't have any Tiny any more 12:06:13 ... because many small devices are quite powerful 12:06:30 ED: True, because we are shipping SVG full on phones now 12:06:41 AE: And there is a demand to keep up with more graphical effects out there 12:07:04 DS: I've heard they are rewriting flash from scratch 12:07:13 ... and there'll be only one 12:07:23 ... given what AE has said 12:07:37 ... how does Ikivo or Bitflash about this? 12:07:46 ... Same as Andrew 12:07:55 NH: Same as Andrew 12:08:18 DS: I think if we are aggressive about core we could get it done in a year 12:08:33 ... and we could say that is the spec for mobile devices and browers 12:08:45 CM: On mobile you'd have this base feature set 12:08:51 ... and modules build up full 12:08:59 ... I guess if we are going to have Core 12:09:06 ... that's going to be only one 12:09:14 ... is there is a reason for modules? 12:09:35 DS: There is a reason is features can implemented in CSS etc 12:10:17 ... Since it is not much more complicated the speed along the rec track is critical 12:10:33 ... it's easier to write tests and the smaller specs 12:10:36 ... for modules 12:10:51 ... we could think of modules as chapters for Core perhaps 12:11:11 ED: If we are going to go down that path we should have a planned infrastructure 12:11:15 ... e.g. scripts 12:11:20 ... dependencies 12:11:23 ... etc 12:11:48 DS: Erik will you compose and email with the challenges you see in that approach 12:12:01 ED: My personal feel it is quicker to move one spec 12:12:03 ... then several 12:12:12 ... although I could be wrong 12:12:22 DS: In terms of review it could be easier to review smaller ones 12:12:25 ... but I could be wrong 12:12:47 AE: If you want to take into account how other modules fit in with other modules 12:12:56 ... you may have to read other modules 12:13:01 ... to see how it all fits 12:13:41 ... maybe we want figure out our approach 12:13:54 ... maybe we can raise an issue on modules or a single spec 12:15:02 Resolution: The SVG WG will operate on the assumption that Core 2.0 will be targeted for mobile devices and desktops 12:15:33 DS: There are challenges that we'd run into with modules 12:16:01 -heycam 12:16:30 ... [Discussion on modules] 12:17:17 AE: Maybe Video 12:17:23 ... as long as we brought over Video 12:17:32 ... and not require us to be placed in a canvas 12:17:42 ... just thinking out loud 12:17:57 DS: I'd be strongly in favor of keeping video 12:18:08 ... the Video in HTML can't be sync-ed with a time container 12:18:22 ... I think we should try to converge on functionality 12:18:32 ... we inherited video from SMIL 12:18:35 ... so we should keep it 12:19:12 ... could have a section on how mobiles should do this 12:20:08 AE: So lets continue trying to get a telcon time 12:20:20 ... I think the first few weeks will be figuring out which approach to take 12:20:33 ... we agree that two is still appropriate? 12:20:51 DS: Personally I'd like to have 2 telcons as long as 1 is option 12:21:02 ... I'd like us to make quick progress on the stuff we have planned 12:21:11 ... and drop down to 1 once we're going 12:21:55 AG: Depends on the work load 12:22:05 ... I think we should run with two and see how it goes 12:23:45 http://mcc.id.au/2007/03/telcon/?op=impossible 12:26:02 ED: Monday and Thursday 20:30 12:26:21 s/20:30/20:30 CET/ 12:26:48 that is the top match on http://mcc.id.au/2007/03/telcon/?op=view 12:27:50 [Discussion on picking a suitable time] 12:29:09 Mon 14:30 and Thu 14:30 UTC-5 / Mon 20:30 and Thu 20:30 UTC+1 / Tue 6:30 and Fri 6:30 UTC+11 12:30:19 AE: A new time for next week 12:30:29 ... and this Thursday off 12:30:39 DS: So Monday next week? 12:31:19 ... I may or may not be available, because I'll be in Japan 12:32:25 ... so that'll be 11:30 for folks in CA 12:32:27 Resolution: We will change the telcon time to Mon 20:30 and Thur 20:30 UTC +1 12:32:40 ACTION: To book the telcon bridge for the new times 12:32:40 Sorry, couldn't find user - To 12:32:59 ACTION: Doug to Book the telcon bridge with the new times 12:32:59 Created ACTION-2346 - Book the telcon bridge with the new times [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-11-11]. 12:41:22 -NH_ 12:41:23 -aemmons 12:41:29 -ed 12:43:22 -anthony 12:43:23 -Doug_Schepers 12:43:23 GA_SVGWG()6:30AM has ended 12:43:24 Attendees were aemmons, anthony, [IPcaller], ed, heycam, Doug_Schepers, NH_ 12:43:32 Zakim, bye 12:43:32 Zakim has left #svg 12:43:38 RRSAgent, make minutes 12:43:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-svg-minutes.html anthony 13:43:47 shepazu: your last couple of commits look a bit strange (see member-svg-editors) 13:44:08 oh? 13:45:22 how so? 13:45:33 or did you mean to remove NH, DOH and TZ from the list? 13:45:44 ...and LM 13:46:20 list of authors 13:46:28 noooo... 13:46:46 who added them? 13:47:00 did he check in the changes to master? 13:47:45 heycam 13:47:54 yes, it's in master 13:48:17 index.html revision 1.55 13:48:30 odd 13:49:25 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/SVG/profiles/1.2T/master/index.html 13:50:14 I know I updated... 13:50:29 I'll try again 13:52:45 will there be some minuted resolutions somewhere on irc regarding the transition call? 13:53:58 gah, maybe that's jibberish...i mean is there an irc-channel similar to how telcons are handled for the call? 13:59:32 fixed now, thanks 13:59:50 um... I dunno... I can get back to you in a couple hours about it 14:00:04 are you intererested in joining the call? 14:01:19 probably won't be able to attend 14:01:27 ok 14:20:22 ed_work has joined #svg 14:34:50 ed_work: can you point me to some cool SVG demos I can show in SVG? 14:35:14 things like your video reflection, or other wow stuff you've done? 14:35:54 well, most stuff is linked from my blog 14:36:07 or through the proceedings from svgopen.org 14:36:27 http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed 14:39:43 ed_work: do you know about that project built on Canvas, it's supposed to be pretty impressive, but I can't recall the name 14:40:29 http://ejohn.org/blog/processingjs/ ? 14:40:42 yeah, that's it, thanks 14:41:25 some of which may be done more efficiently using svg+filters btw 14:42:11 do you have any examples that show that? 14:42:15 depends on whether you need the dom or not, sometimes the dom simply grows too large 14:43:30 sorry, no examples of that 14:44:11 just a question of how much raw pixel processing you need to perform in javascript vs. in native code (filters) 14:45:40 interesting, ok 14:46:00 so, I have to give a presentation in Japan on Friday, on SVG and Canvas 14:46:28 and I've been busting my ass so hard on SVG 1.2 Tiny that I haven't done much for it :( 14:48:45 you can always talk about that :) 14:49:08 oh, no worries, I will :) 14:49:43 so, what do you think the use cases for SVG vs. Canvas are? 14:49:50 like, for each? 14:50:22 document format vs umm...javascript? 14:51:04 svg preserves structure, and is editable in graphics editors 14:51:39 canvas is lightweight in that it doesn't have a DOM tree to care about 14:52:12 right, but it offloads all state and event handling to the author 14:52:21 right 14:52:36 it gives the power to optimize for specific use-cases 14:52:39 what pragmatic use cases are each good at? 14:53:13 obviously, pixel-operations, like getting the color at a point, are better with canvas 14:53:37 svg might be good for, say take an existing vector image, then edit it, then export it 14:53:45 which is good for a number of things 14:54:04 my demos at svgopen this year was based around that 14:54:11 for some part 14:54:30 like the map colorizer thing, and the lolcat builder 14:55:52 http://svgopen.org/2008/presentations/70-Tricks_of_Javascript_and_declarative_animation/index.html has links to those 14:56:55 accessibility is another thing 14:57:23 yes 14:57:36 what are some of the strengths of canvas? 14:57:39 partially illustrated by the ajax photogallery demo (which I can mail to you if you want, it's not online) 14:57:46 oh, please do! 14:58:28 canvas? well...perhaps easier to emulate in IE :) 14:58:57 and the browsers have pretty good support for it 15:01:29 it's a good gateway for people who are already familiar with OpenGL graphics programming 15:01:44 some projects can be ported over 15:02:09 coming from an operating systems API perspective, canvas is closer to what is offered on platforms 15:02:18 right 15:02:30 which may mean that some projects are portable to it 15:03:38 it's got some 3D implementations... 15:03:52 ed has joined #svg 15:04:35 oh, actually the gallery demo is online...i just missed it...http://svgopen.org/2008/presentations/71-How_to_create_an_AJAX_photo_gallery_in_SVG/ 15:04:57 you need to run a php-capable server on your localhost to run it 15:05:17 hm, how do I do that? 15:05:27 download MAMP for example, it's free 15:05:31 ok 15:06:18 and you need to edit the path in the php-file too, it's rather clearly marked 15:06:36 it's a very simple script, just to demo the principle 15:07:12 ok, thanks 15:12:37 btw: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Nov/0047.html 15:12:43 that's a nice message :) 15:16:15 heh 15:41:10 well, i'm off now...good luck with the transition call 15:47:00 thanks, ed_work 17:42:03 RRSAgent has joined &svg 17:42:04 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-svg-irc 17:59:36 Zakim has joined &svg 17:59:39 zakim, room for 3? 17:59:40 ok, plh; conference Team_(svg)17:59Z scheduled with code 83261 (TEAM1) for 60 minutes until 1859Z 17:59:41 Ralph has joined &svg 17:59:49 Team_(svg)17:59Z has now started 17:59:50 +Plh 18:00:06 Zakim, call shepazu 18:00:07 ok, shepazu; the call is being made 18:00:08 +Shepazu 18:01:01 +Ralph 18:01:42 http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=pr-tr 18:01:45 SVG 1.2 Tiny 18:01:45 Transition Request: 18:01:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008OctDec/0076.html 18:01:45 DoC: 18:01:46 http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/doc-svgt12.html 18:01:46 Implementation Report: 18:01:47 http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/SVGT12-ImpReport.html 18:01:50 Element Traversal 18:01:52 Transition Request: 18:01:53 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008OctDec/0084.html 18:01:56 DoC: 18:01:58 http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/ElementTraversal/doc/ 18:02:00 Implementation Report: 18:02:02 http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/ElementTraversal/tests/report/et-implementationReport.html 18:02:09 scribe: plh 18:02:22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008OctDec/0076.html 18:03:24 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/09/09-svg-minutes.html#item01 transition decision by the group 18:03:54 http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-svg-minutes.html#item01 18:04:30 Topic: SVG 1.2 important changes 18:04:48 Doug: we made a number of changes regarding the metadata stuff we added. 18:04:56 ... also regarding i18n 18:05:15 ... and a bunch of changes to the multimedia stuff, specifically how SMIL integrates with SVG 18:05:43 ... we had a lot of multimedia or animation issues that we needed to clarify in the spec or to the commenter 18:06:04 Ralph: so, you were in CR, with a number of implementations and the implementators raised questions? 18:06:12 ... why did you do the new LC? 18:06:51 Doug: in our previous LC, there were a number of comments that only got resolved during our CR phase 18:07:16 ... so we made substantial changes based on that 18:07:23 ... also feedback from implementers 18:07:37 ... and we wanted to add a few new features, suitable for mobiles 18:07:55 ... the devices changed in the time we did svg 1.2 18:08:03 ... so we were able to add more features 18:08:33 ralph: can you reassure us that the implementers were closely following with the changes in the second last call? 18:08:52 doug: everyone except firefox and safari were updating their implementations in real time 18:09:25 ... the reasons we included firefox and safari was that certain features, like namespaces, were only supported in those 18:09:37 ... mobile have "magic" namespaces, ie fixed prefixes 18:10:04 ... most of the features in svg 1.2 tiny were also in svg full 18:10:15 ... so we'll keep updating the matric 18:10:18 s/tric/trix/ 18:10:39 ralph: so for the tests that failed, any of the failures related to the changes during LC? 18:10:57 doug: no, it's due to lack of implementations or smil 18:11:14 ... no failure in the final report are linked to the final report 18:11:37 Topic: SVG 1.2 requirements 18:12:24 Doug: we added an implementation hint/optimization, whether an element will get animated or not 18:12:42 ... and we added support for rdfa and microformats 18:12:47 ... by adding attributes 18:12:59 ... so we meet no new requirements on those attributes 18:13:22 ... we also took the first step in adding support for ARIA 18:13:39 Ralph: any feature request expressed as requirements from other groups? 18:14:21 Doug: sort of. we talked with the accessibility people over several months. for rdfa, svg wasn't on their radar but they were enthousiastic about it 18:14:37 ralph: did you revise any formal requirements or documents? 18:15:05 Doug: that's correct. Not sure if there is a requirement document for svg 1.2 (it was before my time). 18:15:41 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-SVGTiny12Reqs-20060810/ SVGT 1.2 Requirements 18:16:29 FUN 4. SVGT 1.2 should support SVG content organized in pages (use case 1). 18:16:39 [[ 18:16:41 Unsupported. This functionality was explored and found to be unsuitable; pages (on the one hand) and timed scenes (on the other) are better represented using different constructs. 18:16:41 ]] 18:16:53 Doug: we decided to break this out, and that's SVG Print 18:17:30 Philippe: you might want to mark the document as deprecated or something like that 18:17:43 Topic: SVG 1.2 dependencies with other groups 18:18:07 Doug: WAI, I18n, WebApps, and CSS 18:18:25 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008JulSep/0086.html SVG 1.2 Tiny announcement 18:19:05 Doug: explicit requests for review were sent to the Chairs, WAI, I18N, 18:19:05 CSS, HTML, and WebApps mailing lists 18:19:25 Philippe: did you get review from HTML? 18:19:29 Doug: no 18:20:05 ... I asked several times, including asking Hixie. I went to the implementators who replied that they were interested in SVG 2.0 Core. 18:20:26 Topic: SVG 1.2 document has received wide review 18:20:33 Doug: we got 97 comments 18:20:49 -> htp://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/doc-svgt12.html SVG 1.2 DoC 18:21:06 Ralph: any comments from org outside W3C? 18:22:03 Doug: the ones from Cyril Concolato. He is affiliated with MPEG. 18:22:16 ... there is an MPEG standard that includes SVG and he is an implementer 18:22:37 ... we've been with OMA, JIS, 3GPP over the last years 18:22:41 s//working/ 18:22:55 Topic: SVG 1.2 issues have been formally addressed 18:22:57 http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/doc-svgt12.html 18:23:54 Doug: I did the DoC by hand 18:25:07 Topic: SVG 1.2 Implementation information 18:25:16 - a test suite with a test for each feature 18:25:16 - implementation of each feature by 2 independent implementations, one 18:25:16 of which is a mobile implementation 18:25:18 http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/SVGT12-ImpReport.html 18:25:51 Doug: all of them are mobile, except firefox and safari 18:26:12 ... we also had tests that we did not accept 18:26:42 ... we have basic and "complex" tests 18:26:56 Ralph: what methodology did you use to create the tests? 18:27:21 Doug: each participant in the Group went through a chapter in the specification, pulling out requirements from the specification 18:27:49 ... we used a wiki for those requirements 18:28:04 ... one person wrote the test, and an other review it 18:28:41 ralph: any comment lead to additional tests? 18:28:56 doug: it worked both ways, we added and dropped some tests 18:29:13 ralph: all of the substantive changes were covered by the tests? 18:29:23 doug: we did a pretty good job at that 18:29:43 ... most of the tests were donated by implementers, especially from bitflash 18:30:14 ralph: what's up with the purple outline? 18:31:05 doug: at the time of the test fest, the implementation failed but we got a new version since then that passed the test 18:31:20 http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/results/TestFestTPAC.html 18:32:05 doug: the purple lines were more bookkeeping for us 18:32:17 http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/SVGT12-ImpReport.html 18:33:11 ... and for people looking at the test suite and wondering which feature are supported 18:33:51