See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 04 November 2008
<scribe> Scribe: anthony
AE: Any objections to Tiny 1.2 going to PR?
ALL: None
Resolution: The SVG WG agrees to request that SVG 1.2 Tiny be advanced to Proposed Recommendation and then to Recommendation status
<shepazu> ISSUE-2084?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2084 -- 16.2.9 values attribute 'extended syntax' -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2084
DS: Dr Hoffmann didn't really
like this one
... I've marked it as satisfied
... I guess it's not that he's satisfied
... he's willing to live with it
... but he'd rather it removed
... is it ok to remove this part?
AE: No it's ok
... I see there are number of responses on this
DS: I guess the section in
question starts with "compatibility with existing content" and
ends with "discouraged from using trailing semicolon"
... I can I remove the whole thing
... in values?
... will this have a bad impact on existing content?
NH: I think we can live with
that
... I don't think it's a big issue
Resolution: We will remove the section on of the specification allowing trailing semicolon
DS: I can do that now
<shepazu> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/doc-svgt12.html
DS: There's the link
... if you scroll down
... you'll see on the right hand side
... we had 97 issues
... and 97 satisfied
... and this is the true recording
... we worked with everyone to get a resolution
<shepazu> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/SVGT12-ImpReport.html
DS: This is also important
... there are a number of tests we had to drop at the last
minute
... for various reasons
... we have spotty coverage on some of them
... but we have at least 2 passes for every approved test
... and a big thank you to the implementors
NH: I found a few mistakes in some tests
DS: I think we should wait a week
before we look at those
... we'll be updating it at the time we go to
recommendation
... we should update this with more tests
... and an updated corverage
... I'd like to have at least 500 tests
NH: Is it possible for us to get our new implementation for this release?
DS: I'm not sure. It is possible
NH: I can send you our player with the tests
DS: Ok, I'll attempt to do
that
... can you do that today?
NH: In a few hours
DS: It's going to be passes right?
NH: Yes
DS: Is it for Mac or Windows?
NH: Windows
DS: I guess there are only 15 or 20 that you're not passing
NH: I think it's more
DS: Please send me the implementation
NH: I'll send you the
implementation with a list of the tests we've been fixing
... and Bitflash can do the same
... and I'll see about adding them to the matrix
<heycam> http://mcc.id.au/2007/03/telcon/
CM: Chris is set to +2
... I'll change him to +1
... he's in the same timezone as ED and NH
<ed> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=188
DS: I think my zone is -5
... we could move to a Monday telcon
... since we're done with SVG Tiny we should examine what we
are doing with telcons
... I propose as we've been discussing for the last several
months
... rather than work on 1.2 Full
... that we work on 2.0 core
... which will be a reformulation of SVG
... and more suitable for integration for HTML and XHTML
... and we should focus on bringing all the good stuff from SVG
Tiny
... we wouldn't exactly start from scratch
... I'd like to rearrange it because it's a bit confusing
... I propose that one call be devoted be focused on 2.0
core
... and other core be focused on specific modules
... how does that sound to everybody?
... do people think that working 2.0 core is what we should
work on?
CM: I think it would be good to work on something like core
ED: I think it depends on the
scope of core
... I think it would be useful that maps to 1.1 but has the
good things from Tiny
AE: Is it useful having two
tracks having Full and Core?
... and we don't have any Tiny any more
... because many small devices are quite powerful
ED: True, because we are shipping SVG full on phones now
AE: And there is a demand to keep up with more graphical effects out there
DS: I've heard they are rewriting
flash from scratch
... and there'll be only one
... given what AE has said
... how does Ikivo or Bitflash about this?
... Same as Andrew
NH: Same as Andrew
DS: I think if we are aggressive
about core we could get it done in a year
... and we could say that is the spec for mobile devices and
browers
CM: On mobile you'd have this
base feature set
... and modules build up full
... I guess if we are going to have Core
... that's going to be only one
... is there is a reason for modules?
DS: There is a reason is features
can implemented in CSS etc
... Since it is not much more complicated the speed along the
rec track is critical
... it's easier to write tests and the smaller specs
... for modules
... we could think of modules as chapters for Core perhaps
ED: If we are going to go down
that path we should have a planned infrastructure
... e.g. scripts
... dependencies
... etc
DS: Erik will you compose and email with the challenges you see in that approach
ED: My personal feel it is
quicker to move one spec
... then several
... although I could be wrong
DS: In terms of review it could
be easier to review smaller ones
... but I could be wrong
AE: If you want to take into
account how other modules fit in with other modules
... you may have to read other modules
... to see how it all fits
... maybe we want figure out our approach
... maybe we can raise an issue on modules or a single spec
Resolution: The SVG WG will operate on the assumption that Core 2.0 will be targeted for mobile devices and desktops
DS: There are challenges that
we'd run into with modules
... [Discussion on modules]
AE: Maybe Video
... as long as we brought over Video
... and not require us to be placed in a canvas
... just thinking out loud
DS: I'd be strongly in favor of
keeping video
... the Video in HTML can't be sync-ed with a time
container
... I think we should try to converge on functionality
... we inherited video from SMIL
... so we should keep it
... could have a section on how mobiles should do this
AE: So lets continue trying to
get a telcon time
... I think the first few weeks will be figuring out which
approach to take
... we agree that two is still appropriate?
DS: Personally I'd like to have 2
telcons as long as 1 is option
... I'd like us to make quick progress on the stuff we have
planned
... and drop down to 1 once we're going
AG: Depends on the work
load
... I think we should run with two and see how it goes
<ed> http://mcc.id.au/2007/03/telcon/?op=impossible
ED: Monday and Thursday 20:30 CET
<ed> that is the top match on http://mcc.id.au/2007/03/telcon/?op=view
[Discussion on picking a suitable time]
<ed> 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
AE: A new time for next
week
... and this Thursday off
DS: So Monday next week?
... I may or may not be available, because I'll be in
Japan
... so that'll be 11:30 for folks in CA
Resolution: We will change the telcon time to Mon 20:30 and Thur 20:30 UTC +1
<scribe> ACTION: To book the telcon bridge for the new times [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-svg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - To
<scribe> ACTION: Doug to Book the telcon bridge with the new times [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-svg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2346 - Book the telcon bridge with the new times [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-11-11].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/We will advance/The SVG WG agrees to request that SVG 1.2 Tiny be advanced/ Succeeded: s/Telcon/Telcon Times/ Succeeded: s/20:30/20:30 CET/ Found Scribe: anthony Inferring ScribeNick: anthony Default Present: aemmons, anthony, [IPcaller], ed, heycam, Doug_Schepers, NH_ Present: aemmons anthony [IPcaller] ed heycam Doug_Schepers NH_ Found Date: 04 Nov 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-svg-minutes.html People with action items: doug to[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]