19:28:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #svg
19:28:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-svg-irc
19:28:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:28:10 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
19:28:10 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()2:30PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
19:28:11 <trackbot> Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
19:28:11 <trackbot> Date: 24 November 2008
19:28:26 <Zakim> GA_SVGWG()2:30PM has now started
19:28:26 <Zakim> +Shepazu
19:31:04 <Zakim> +??P14
19:31:05 <heycam> Zakim, ? is me
19:31:05 <Zakim> -??P14
19:31:05 <Zakim> +??P14
19:31:05 <Zakim> +heycam; got it
19:31:32 <Zakim> +??P15
19:32:01 <Zakim> +??P16
19:32:04 <anthony> Zakim, ??P15 is me
19:32:04 <Zakim> +anthony; got it
19:32:12 <ed> Zakim, ??P15 is me
19:32:12 <Zakim> I already had ??P15 as anthony, ed
19:32:18 <ed> Zakim, ??P16 is me
19:32:18 <Zakim> +ed; got it
19:32:53 <Zakim> +Shepazu.a
19:32:56 <Zakim> -Shepazu.a
19:33:04 <Zakim> -Shepazu
19:33:12 <Zakim> +Shepazu
19:34:03 <ed> Zakim, who's here?
19:34:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see Shepazu, heycam, anthony, ed
19:34:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, ed, heycam, shepazu, anthony, trackbot, ed_work
19:34:17 <ed> regrets: CL
19:35:34 <anthony> scribe: anthony
19:35:42 <ed> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2008OctDec/0396.html
19:35:44 <anthony> chair: Erik
19:36:02 <anthony> Topic: Upcomming F2F meetings
19:36:21 <anthony> ED: I saw that it was discussed at the last telcon
19:36:35 <anthony> ... is there a registration page up for it?
19:36:44 <anthony> DS: No, but I'll make one up now
19:42:14 <anthony> ED: For the next F2F after that we are planning on having it in France?
19:42:36 <anthony> DS: Raliegh
19:44:35 <anthony> ... I'm going to Web Directions North in the first week of Feb
19:47:48 <shepazu> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/19480/SydneyF2F2009/
19:48:26 <anthony> DS: Registration link is there, adding it to the wiki page now
19:51:35 <anthony> Topic: HTML and SVG coordination
19:51:51 <anthony> ED: We did start some discussion at the TPAC with the HTML WG
19:52:00 <anthony> ... we decided a number of goals for SVG inside of HTML5
19:52:14 <anthony> ... probably didn't finish the discussion
19:52:25 <anthony> DS: I think we should make this a priority
19:53:13 <anthony> ... at the F2F in short the SVG WG acknowledged that it is desirable to have error correction
19:54:01 <anthony> ... SVG should be in XML syntax and if the content creator doesn't make it in that syntax then error
19:54:06 <anthony> ... correction is applied
19:54:20 <anthony> CM: So it's a question of a validity
19:54:52 <anthony> ... so I think it HTML they have various things that are parsing errors that get corrected
19:55:38 <anthony> DS: The distinction is subtle but I'd like wording saying that the SVG is not correct but it will be corrected
19:56:35 <anthony> ... E.g. There are certain elements that can't be left open in HTML5
19:57:12 <anthony> ... We do see some benefit of this, but it should be serialised as XML
19:57:51 <anthony> ... In HTML5 attribute values don't have quotes and this is allowed. But in SVG this is reported as an error
19:58:03 <anthony> ... but in HTML5 this can be error corrected
19:59:32 <anthony> CM: So there was in principle support for the error correction
19:59:59 <anthony> DS: There should be no white list of SVG elements, any SVG element that is legal in SVG should be allowed
20:00:32 <anthony> ... And it doesn't matter what language we are putting in there. The author shouldn't have to do anything special when they are
20:00:36 <anthony> ... putting in SVG
20:01:14 <heycam> s/error correction/that view of document validity and error correction?/
20:01:52 <anthony> ... so the white list only be that of what is supported by implementations rather than a specification
20:02:52 <anthony> ... I think the parser requires a list of element stings
20:03:27 <anthony> ... we may need to make some distinction about how SVG is treated
20:04:25 <anthony> ... there were conflicts in names "a" element, "textArea", "font", "metadata" they were essentially black listed
20:04:36 <anthony> ... they shouldn't be black listed or white listed
20:04:46 <anthony> ... what are the next steps we need to take?
20:04:59 <anthony> CM: Someone should write up the scheme you described?
20:06:25 <anthony> DS: I need to go back and read Ian's proposal
20:07:28 <anthony> ... he says exactly how it needs to be parsed, but if an implementation wants to parse it differently
20:07:38 <anthony> ... then this should be allowed
20:07:49 <anthony> ... it shouldn't say that you can't
20:08:06 <anthony> CM: You wouldn't want those two different ways to result in different output
20:08:21 <anthony> DS: Ideally no
20:08:32 <anthony> ... I guess you have a point
20:09:11 <anthony> CM: Uniform parsing is one of the requirements of HTML5
20:09:38 <anthony> ED: Do we need to talk to the HTML Working Group again regarding the goals?
20:09:50 <anthony> ... I'm wondering if Ian has everything he has to make a new proposal?
20:09:58 <anthony> ... or if he needs more info
20:10:19 <anthony> DS: We should probably come back with an email saying these are the goals we agreed to at TPAC
20:10:49 <anthony> ... we'd like to move forward with this
20:11:05 <anthony> ... perhaps we should have a conversation on our email list first
20:11:11 <anthony> ED: Sure, I can do that
20:12:16 <anthony> DS: We had some proposals some went down to the parser level. We have said that the HTML parser can be used to parse SVG
20:12:33 <anthony> ... so it should be easier to say these are the goals that should be met
20:13:47 <anthony> ... Simply putting it in the spec may not be good enough. We need to consider the implications of what's in there.
20:13:58 <anthony> ... Compared to SVG in strict XML
20:14:08 <anthony> ED: I will send an email out about this
20:14:23 <anthony> ... and try to collect the goals we decided on
20:15:35 <anthony> ACTION: Erik to Send an email to the SVG Working Group regarding the goals that were decided on at TPAC for SVG in HTML
20:15:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2355 - Send an email to the SVG Working Group regarding the goals that were decided on at TPAC for SVG in HTML [on Erik Dahlström - due 2008-12-01].
20:15:54 <anthony> Topic: Errata 1.1
20:16:34 <anthony> ED: Has something been done about this?
20:16:42 <anthony> AG: I had an action to split out the 1.1
20:16:50 <anthony> ... but I haven't gotten around to doing this
20:17:39 <anthony> ED: I think it would be helpful to check in what's been done on 1.1 2nd edition
20:18:18 <anthony> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Group/repository/errata/errata.xml
20:18:54 <anthony> Undefined Behaviour with Filters
20:18:55 <anthony> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Group/repository/errata/errata.xml#undefined-behaviour-with-filters
20:19:23 <anthony> ED: It's about 8 years old
20:22:54 <anthony> ... His example is about making something less transparent, why not use opacity? Or am I missing something
20:23:41 <anthony> DS: I think we should skip this one
20:23:56 <anthony> ... and see if we can solve this in the next filters module
20:24:20 <anthony> ... perhaps we can raise an issue on the filters module for this
20:24:52 <anthony> CM: I think he's saying that the initial canvas is undefined
20:27:12 <anthony> ... but I think that it might be
20:27:16 <shepazu> ISSUE-2185?
20:27:16 <trackbot> ISSUE-2185 -- Update SVG 1.2 Tiny to account for the change in the default overflow property in SVG 1.1 -- RAISED
20:27:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2185
20:27:18 <anthony> Topic: ISSUE-2185
20:28:02 <anthony> DS: The paragraph in question is the last one in 7.10
20:28:27 <shepazu> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2008JulSep/0344.html
20:28:34 <anthony> ... it seemed to me that we should correct this to match the behaviour we are allowing which is here
20:28:50 <anthony> ... that overflow is only hidden for things that are not root
20:28:59 <anthony> ... I think that was for SVG elements only
20:29:30 <ed> the <svg> element
20:29:44 <anthony> ... I thought they were talking about the root element
20:30:02 <anthony> ED: That's at least how I understood the elemail from David H
20:30:18 <anthony> ... I guess we could do some slight rewording if you want
20:30:49 <anthony> DS: Doesn't it contradict
20:31:01 <anthony> ED: It's still informative
20:31:59 <anthony> DS: We could say that this paragraph is missinformative =P
20:32:30 <shepazu> s/missinformative/misinformative (or possibly disinformative)
20:32:37 <shepazu> s/missinformative/misinformative (or possibly disinformative)/
20:33:11 <anthony> DS: We could add
20:33:31 <shepazu> [[ since the initial value for the 'overflow' property is hidden for non-root elements that establish viewports ([SVG11], section 14.3.3). ]]
20:33:48 <anthony> DS: That would satisfy me
20:34:11 <anthony> ... and that would accurately describe what we are doing for SVG 1.1
20:34:22 <anthony> ... I don't know if saying initial value is exactly right
20:34:41 <ed> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVG11-20030114/masking.html#OverflowProperty
20:34:43 <anthony> CM: I think the property only has one initial value
20:34:59 <anthony> ED: Overflow is pretty verbose
20:35:09 <anthony> ... different initial values depending on the element
20:35:46 <anthony> DS: We probably should try to correct more than we want to at this time
20:35:54 <anthony> ... this will change eventually
20:36:16 <heycam> s/... I don't know if/CM: I don't know if/
20:36:34 <anthony> Resolution: We will change the informative section 7.10 to match the wording of the SVG 1.1 errata
20:38:03 <anthony> ACTION: Doug to Make the change as agreed to for ISSUE-2185
20:38:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2356 - Make the change as agreed to for ISSUE-2185 [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-12-01].
20:38:57 <anthony> DS: As issues come in for spelling and typos, I am correcting them in Master, but not in the Published (PR) draft
20:39:10 <anthony> ... whenever we go to Rec they will appear in it
20:41:11 <ed> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Group/repository/errata/errata.xml#script_animatable_xlink_href
20:41:18 <anthony> Topic: Errata items
20:42:22 <anthony> ED: This one is about xlink:href is animatable
20:42:35 <anthony> ... in Tiny 1.2 we say it can't be
20:43:00 <anthony> CM: Is this because xlink:href is defined one place?
20:43:05 <anthony> ED: It could be
20:43:17 <anthony> ... I think some have it in the attribute list
20:43:36 <anthony> CM: It's mentioned in "use" for example
20:43:48 <anthony> ... maybe it should be something we have for Core
20:44:00 <anthony> ... list the attributes for each element def
20:44:13 <anthony> DS: I already raised an issue on that already
20:44:39 <anthony> ... the build script should build it form the schema
20:44:49 <anthony> ED: I would to move this errata item to proposed
20:45:37 <anthony> AG: I don't have any problems with this one
20:46:03 <anthony> Resolution: We will move the Errata item "Clarify if xlink:href on <script> elements is animatable or not" to proposed
20:46:23 <anthony> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Group/repository/errata/errata.xml#attribute-index
20:46:52 <anthony> AG: This one looks complete
20:47:41 <anthony> CM: I wrote the item but I remember at one point Chris had an action to check it
20:49:32 <anthony> AG: I'm ok with this
20:49:36 <anthony> ED: Me too
20:50:18 <anthony> Resolution: We will move the Errata item "Incorrect entries in the attribute index" to proposed status
20:50:56 <anthony> ACTION: Anthony to Change the status on the errata times as per the resolution
20:50:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2357 - Change the status on the errata times as per the resolution [on Anthony Grasso - due 2008-12-01].
20:51:41 <anthony> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Group/repository/errata/errata.xml#svgzoomevent-interface
20:53:53 <anthony> ED: The "SVGZoomEvent - Interface" seems to be ok to me
20:54:00 <anthony> ... just checking Tiny now
20:54:12 <anthony> CM: It's just a basic event
20:54:22 <anthony> ED: And in 1.1 it is UIEvent
20:54:35 <anthony> ... so that wouldn't affect Tiny at all
20:55:08 <anthony> CM: Maybe Tiny must of changed from UIEvent to BasicEvent at some point
20:55:24 <anthony> ... should someone take Andrew's action to check it out?
20:55:32 <anthony> ED: I'm just wondering if there is anything to check out
20:55:45 <anthony> ... we can see there is no SVGZoomEvent in Tiny
20:56:05 <anthony> ... any change we make in 1.1 unless we make it incompatible in some way should be fine
20:56:29 <anthony> ... I don't think removing some of those interface events will effect anything
20:56:46 <anthony> ... I'm not sure in which circumstance they will be applicable anyway
20:57:01 <anthony> CM: Unless you had some sort of interaction where you can click to zoom
20:57:52 <anthony> ... should we just close this action and accept this?
20:57:58 <anthony> ED: Would be fine with me at least
20:59:16 <anthony> AG: I can't edit it
20:59:28 <anthony> s/it/the action/
20:59:34 <anthony> DS: Old tracker is not working
20:59:51 <anthony> AG: I'll edit the errata to say the action is closed
21:00:11 <anthony> ... and move it to proposed if there are no objections
21:01:10 <anthony> ED: Just wondering if we can change the status of the next one after that
21:01:16 <anthony> ... it seems to have a resolution
21:01:24 <anthony> AG: And same with the one after that
21:02:39 <anthony> ED: We can postpone this for Thursday
21:05:27 <Zakim> -ed
21:05:30 <Zakim> -anthony
21:05:31 <Zakim> -heycam
21:05:48 <Zakim> -Shepazu
21:05:48 <anthony> Zakim, bye
21:05:48 <Zakim> Zakim has left #svg
21:05:49 <Zakim> GA_SVGWG()2:30PM has ended
21:05:50 <Zakim> Attendees were Shepazu, heycam, anthony, ed, Shepazu.a
21:06:01 <anthony> RRSAgent, make minutes
21:06:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-svg-minutes.html anthony
22:21:15 <ed_work> ed_work has joined #svg
22:24:50 <anthony_> anthony_ has joined #svg
22:27:22 <ed_work> ed_work has joined #svg
22:27:59 <anthony_> anthony_ has joined #svg
22:32:37 <heycam> heycam has joined #svg
23:28:41 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #svg