IRC log of svg on 2008-12-15
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 19:30:47 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #svg
- 19:30:47 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/15-svg-irc
- 19:30:49 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 19:30:51 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
- 19:30:51 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()2:30PM scheduled to start now
- 19:30:52 [trackbot]
- Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
- 19:30:52 [trackbot]
- Date: 15 December 2008
- 19:31:19 [Zakim]
- GA_SVGWG()2:30PM has now started
- 19:31:26 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 19:31:52 [shepazu]
- Zakim, +??P1 is me
- 19:31:52 [Zakim]
- sorry, shepazu, I do not recognize a party named '+??P1'
- 19:32:02 [shepazu]
- Zakim, ??P1 is me
- 19:32:02 [Zakim]
- +shepazu; got it
- 19:32:09 [shepazu]
- that's annoying
- 19:32:19 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 19:32:37 [ed]
- Zakim, [IP is me
- 19:32:37 [Zakim]
- +ed; got it
- 19:33:37 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 19:33:39 [heycam]
- Zakim, ??P3 is me
- 19:33:39 [Zakim]
- +heycam; got it
- 19:33:52 [Zakim]
- +??P4
- 19:34:03 [anthony]
- Zakim, ??P4 is me
- 19:34:03 [Zakim]
- +anthony; got it
- 19:34:32 [ed]
- Zakim, who's here?
- 19:34:32 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see shepazu, ed, heycam, anthony
- 19:34:33 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, ed, heycam, shepazu, anthony, trackbot, ed_work
- 19:36:53 [shepazu]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/19480/SydneyF2F2009/
- 19:37:02 [ed]
- scribeNick: ed
- 19:37:15 [ed]
- Topic: Sydney f2f
- 19:37:46 [shepazu]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/19480/SydneyF2F2009/results
- 19:40:06 [ed]
- AG: please register if you're coming
- 19:40:22 [ed]
- ED: location?
- 19:40:23 [Zakim]
- +ChrisL
- 19:40:26 [ed]
- AG: probably manly
- 19:40:52 [ChrisL]
- ChrisL has joined #svg
- 19:41:11 [ChrisL]
- zakim, who is here?
- 19:41:11 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see shepazu, ed, heycam, anthony, ChrisL
- 19:41:12 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see ChrisL, RRSAgent, Zakim, ed, heycam, shepazu, anthony, trackbot, ed_work
- 19:41:30 [ed]
- Topic: svg 1.1 errata
- 19:42:16 [anthony]
- http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#propogation-of-rotation-text
- 19:43:35 [ed]
- http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml.diff?r1=1.16&r2=1.17&f=h
- 19:44:54 [ed]
- CM: some small things
- 19:45:09 [ChrisL]
- CM: </svg>;
- 19:45:09 [ChrisL]
- is wrong
- 19:46:09 [ed]
- CL: the included file seems fine, but the inline example is wrong
- 19:46:16 [ChrisL]
- trailing semicolon is not in the source that is included; must be in the arrata
- 19:46:21 [ChrisL]
- s/arr/err/
- 19:46:50 [ChrisL]
- zakim, mute me
- 19:46:50 [Zakim]
- ChrisL should now be muted
- 19:47:35 [ed]
- ED: is it correct that it maps rotate to characters and not to glyphs?
- 19:47:36 [ChrisL]
- zakim, unmute me
- 19:47:36 [Zakim]
- ChrisL should no longer be muted
- 19:47:46 [ed]
- AG: yes
- 19:48:29 [ChrisL]
- zakim, mute me
- 19:48:29 [Zakim]
- ChrisL should now be muted
- 19:48:53 [ed]
- CL: the spec tells you what to do for those cases, important for ligatures for example, you skip values if you do a ligature
- 19:49:31 [ChrisL]
- particularly important to avoid off-by-one errors with optional ligatures
- 19:49:45 [heycam]
- propogation -> propagation
- 19:50:14 [heycam]
- the links to the rotate attribute should have single quotes around them (like the element links)
- 19:50:35 [heycam]
- most of the links have an unwanted trailing space within the link
- 19:50:56 [ChrisL]
- yup, thats right. does not affect tiny
- 19:51:14 [heycam]
- ED: is this in tiny?
- 19:51:28 [heycam]
- AG: no, tiny doesn't have positioning attributes on tspans etc.
- 19:51:37 [heycam]
- Scribe: Cameron
- 19:51:40 [heycam]
- ScribeNick: heycam
- 19:51:59 [heycam]
- ED: is there any example with both rotate and x/y positioning at the same time?
- 19:52:00 [heycam]
- AG: no
- 19:52:12 [heycam]
- ED: i'm wondering if it's defined in what order they're applied, if it makes any difference
- 19:52:26 [heycam]
- CM: would it make any difference?
- 19:52:47 [heycam]
- ED: wouldn't think so
- 19:53:15 [heycam]
- "the the (orange)" -> "the (orange)"
- 19:53:25 [heycam]
- ED: it says "supplemental rotation", so it seems to be pretty clear
- 19:54:34 [heycam]
- ED: might be easier to read if the paragraph describing the rotations is split into a list
- 19:54:38 [heycam]
- CM: maybe a list item per element
- 19:55:25 [heycam]
- AG: ok should be easy
- 19:56:01 [heycam]
- ED: optionally you could be the same text inside the test, as the test description
- 19:56:44 [heycam]
- ED: is it informative or normative?
- 19:56:47 [heycam]
- AG: informative
- 19:57:00 [heycam]
- ED: probably should note it as informative
- 19:57:30 [ChrisL]
- zakim, unmute me
- 19:57:30 [Zakim]
- ChrisL should no longer be muted
- 19:57:40 [heycam]
- ED: there might some generic statement that says that all examples are informative
- 19:57:47 [ChrisL]
- zakim, mute me
- 19:57:47 [Zakim]
- ChrisL should now be muted
- 19:59:50 [ChrisL]
- +1
- 20:00:10 [heycam]
- ED: should we move it to proposed?
- 20:01:20 [ChrisL]
- zakim, who is noisy?
- 20:01:30 [Zakim]
- ChrisL, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: shepazu (89%)
- 20:03:08 [heycam]
- CM: do you have an svg version of the rotation diagram?
- 20:03:11 [heycam]
- AG: no i might make one
- 20:03:22 [heycam]
- ED: pending these changes we can move it to proposed
- 20:03:45 [heycam]
- AG: batik and opera do the same thing, which is not propagating the rotation into tspans
- 20:03:59 [heycam]
- AG: and not onto the text after a child tspan
- 20:04:12 [heycam]
- AG: in example 5, the last word "rotation" doesn't have any characters rotated in batik/opera
- 20:05:00 [heycam]
- ED: for us it'd be nice so we don't have to do two different things for rotation [since it's different in tiny]
- 20:05:07 [heycam]
- ED: i'd like to hear jwatt's comments
- 20:05:36 [heycam]
- ED: have you tested firefox?
- 20:05:41 [heycam]
- AG: yes they don't rotate any of the characters
- 20:06:29 [heycam]
- CM: what made us choose to do it this way?
- 20:06:51 [heycam]
- AG: in tiny, if there are fewer rotations than characters, it doesn't say what to do if there's a tspan
- 20:07:03 [heycam]
- AG: so the erratum makes 1.1 align with tiny
- 20:07:33 [heycam]
- CL: aligns and extends
- 20:07:37 [heycam]
- CM: it was undefined in 1.1?
- 20:07:39 [heycam]
- AG: yes
- 20:08:12 [ChrisL]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:08:12 [Zakim]
- ChrisL should no longer be muted
- 20:08:15 [heycam]
- ED: it's not interoperable at the moment, so hopefully this will make it usuable
- 20:08:28 [heycam]
- ED: don't know if we had many 1.2T tests for text rotation
- 20:08:43 [heycam]
- CL: it'd be a good test for 1.1e2
- 20:09:06 [heycam]
- CL: more likely to get fixed in implementations if there are tests
- 20:09:19 [heycam]
- CM: are there tests associated with this erratum?
- 20:09:38 [heycam]
- AG: no but i could take the tspan05 example and turn it into a test
- 20:10:05 [heycam]
- AG: change the text colour to green, with expected rotation characters in red underneath
- 20:10:43 [heycam]
- ED: should probably make all errata tests into proper test suite tests for a release later
- 20:11:55 [heycam]
- Topic: clip path erratum
- 20:12:02 [heycam]
- ED: more feedback from thomas?
- 20:12:33 [heycam]
- DS: he is arguing from the point of view of implementing, but to me it is more important how useful the feature is
- 20:12:48 [heycam]
- DS: and it's not a burden to implement it the way we've described
- 20:13:09 [heycam]
- DS: he argues that it's hacky/ugly, but i don't think he's substantiated that
- 20:13:31 [ChrisL]
- I agree with Doug
- 20:14:00 [heycam]
- ED: i'd agree that it would put a burden on implementations to change things, but it's not a big burden
- 20:14:23 [heycam]
- DS: i mean an undue burden. any change needs effort.
- 20:14:39 [heycam]
- DS: he seems to be claiming that batik is doing it a certain way, turning clip paths into masks
- 20:15:19 [ChrisL]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:15:19 [Zakim]
- ChrisL was not muted, ChrisL
- 20:15:27 [shepazu]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Dec/0041.html
- 20:15:29 [heycam]
- CM: i think that was part of his argument that clip paths are more like pixel operations
- 20:16:53 [heycam]
- DS: i don't see a conflict with tying visibility to clipping, but he does
- 20:17:28 [heycam]
- CL: i think it's consistent to tie the visible* values to clipping
- 20:17:30 [heycam]
- ED: i'd agree
- 20:17:43 [heycam]
- ED: it would not be a good idea to introduce more pointer-events values
- 20:18:15 [heycam]
- ED: introducing new elements could be an option in the future
- 20:19:13 [heycam]
- DS: i think it's worth the little bit of work for implementors to do it this way
- 20:19:29 [heycam]
- CL: it's unspecified at the moment, some implementations have to change, we think we've changed it the right way
- 20:20:18 [heycam]
- DS: if we change this, how hard would it be to change the behaviour in batik?
- 20:21:49 [heycam]
- CM: i think not hard, thomas has created a patch that unconditionally (irrespective of pointer-events) clips events
- 20:22:50 [heycam]
- ED: so the only thing missing from batik would be treating the visible* values differently
- 20:22:54 [heycam]
- ED: same change for firefox
- 20:23:08 [Zakim]
- -shepazu
- 20:23:20 [heycam]
- DS: and safari would have to change to clip by default, and doesn't clip when pointer-events has particular values
- 20:23:43 [heycam]
- CL: has safari implemented it differently, or not at all?
- 20:24:15 [heycam]
- ED: they do clipping, but perhaps the same as batik currently
- 20:24:19 [shepazu]
- ran out of skype credit.... will be back in a moment
- 20:24:49 [heycam]
- ED: i don't think it's a bad change
- 20:25:03 [heycam]
- CL: i think we should move it to proposed
- 20:25:33 [heycam]
- https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46289
- 20:26:04 [heycam]
- RESOLUTION: Move this clip path events erratum to proposed
- 20:28:23 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 20:28:30 [heycam]
- Topic: 1.1 test suite bug
- 20:28:44 [ChrisL]
- zakim, ??P6 is shepazu
- 20:28:44 [Zakim]
- +shepazu; got it
- 20:31:22 [heycam]
- Topic: name of SVG Tiny 1.2
- 20:32:55 [ChrisL]
- It has been suggested that Tiny 1.2 should be called Core 1.2
- 20:34:08 [heycam]
- DS: an issue with the name of the SVG Tiny 1.2 spec has come up
- 20:34:35 [heycam]
- DS: it's been suggested that we name it SVG 1.2 Core, it becoming the core language that 1.2 modules go on top of
- 20:34:42 [heycam]
- s/becoming/being/
- 20:34:55 [heycam]
- CL: we've already said it's the core of the language, calling it Core 1.2 is reasonably consistent
- 20:35:02 [heycam]
- CL: and when we come up with Core 2.0 it's consistent
- 20:35:11 [heycam]
- CL: otoh, the name SVGT has a bit of traction
- 20:35:23 [heycam]
- CL: getting rid of that term would be a problem
- 20:35:41 [heycam]
- DS: we'd have to hear from the two main mobile vendors
- 20:36:01 [heycam]
- AG: i agree with chris, can see both sides of the coin
- 20:36:12 [heycam]
- DS: i'm the same way, fairly ambivalent
- 20:36:46 [heycam]
- DS: i wonder if people might look at SVG Core and say "oh, there's something new" rather than as svg tiny
- 20:36:55 [heycam]
- DS: people might think svg tiny is old news
- 20:37:19 [heycam]
- DS: otoh, calling it Core sends a certain message to the browser vendors that we think this is the core of the language, which some of them have objected to in the past
- 20:37:33 [heycam]
- AG: be good to get feedback from mobile and desktop implementors
- 20:38:38 [heycam]
- ED: practically, doing the name change would mean going through the spec and changing all instances of the name
- 20:38:42 [heycam]
- ED: other specs that reference it?
- 20:38:55 [heycam]
- DS: might create confusion in the marketplace about whether svg is implemented/used
- 20:39:10 [heycam]
- DS: i think if this issue had come up earlier it might've been more feasible
- 20:39:32 [heycam]
- DS: we could ask ikivo/bitflash what they think about it
- 20:40:12 [heycam]
- CM: they probably have promotional material already published with the current name
- 20:40:31 [heycam]
- DS: i'm inclined to say that unless we get buy-in from bitflash/ikivo, we keep the name as is
- 20:40:52 [heycam]
- DS: an appropriate time to have done this might've been when we went back to LC
- 20:41:43 [heycam]
- ED: we'd have to decide before going to rec. there are 3 more days of AC review?
- 20:41:53 [heycam]
- ED: after those days what happens?
- 20:42:08 [heycam]
- DS: planning on publishing on friday
- 20:42:19 [heycam]
- DS: i'll email bitflash/ikivo
- 20:42:33 [heycam]
- ED: my opinion would be that it would cause confusion rather than unity or anything
- 20:43:22 [heycam]
- Topic: SVG 1.1 test suite bug
- 20:43:25 [heycam]
- ED: we got a bug report
- 20:43:30 [heycam]
- ED: are we using the bugzilla?
- 20:43:45 [heycam]
- DS: if people are comfortable raising bugs that way, then we should keep it
- 20:43:56 [heycam]
- CL: preferable to people adding it to our tracker
- 20:44:54 [heycam]
- ED: this particular test case does have an incorrect reference image, i think
- 20:45:10 [heycam]
- ED: i don't think it's news; we probably have it in the old tracker, along with other test suite bugs
- 20:45:24 [heycam]
- ED: we should track it in the new tracker and fix it as part of releasing the 1.1e2 spec
- 20:45:49 [heycam]
- ED: having someone respond is a good idea
- 20:45:51 [heycam]
- CL: i'll respond
- 20:46:10 [heycam]
- ACTION: Chris to respond to the bugzilla bug on the incorrect reference image
- 20:46:10 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-2381 - Respond to the bugzilla bug on the incorrect reference image [on Chris Lilley - due 2008-12-22].
- 20:46:19 [heycam]
- CL: why is the reference image incorrect? what makes it wrong?
- 20:46:27 [heycam]
- ED: not sure exactly, the link he gives (blow-by-blow) is correct
- 20:46:28 [ChrisL]
- ok so why is the reference image wrong here?
- 20:46:37 [ChrisL]
- batik uses a series of box blurs?
- 20:46:39 [heycam]
- ED: i'd guess that batik just generated it incorrectly or that it was an incorrect patch file
- 20:46:43 [ChrisL]
- could be a buggy patch file
- 20:46:50 [heycam]
- CL: i'll look into that
- 20:47:33 [heycam]
- ED: until we have the 1.1 test suite moved over, it's difficult to do the fixes
- 20:47:39 [heycam]
- ED: any status update on that?
- 20:48:43 [heycam]
- DS: we decided not to do it, since we need to change the tests anyway
- 20:48:46 [heycam]
- DS: so revision numbers didn't matter
- 20:48:51 [ed]
- http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2373 ?
- 20:49:13 [heycam]
- CM: didn't we say that we should do it to keep the cvs logs?
- 20:49:26 [heycam]
- CL: i'd imagine the best thing would be to port the 1.2T copies
- 20:49:34 [heycam]
- CL: using the 1.1 <-> 1.2T test name correspondence table
- 20:49:52 [heycam]
- CL: checking them in with cvs revision 1.1 files
- 20:49:59 [heycam]
- CL: we shouldn't lose the fixes we made in 1.2T
- 20:50:17 [heycam]
- ED: i have a feeling most of those fixes were for xml:id and not much else
- 20:50:22 [heycam]
- ED: e.g. tiny things that weren't in 1.1
- 20:50:41 [heycam]
- ED: i could be wrong but that's my feel of it
- 20:51:03 [heycam]
- ED: things like changing percentages to [0,1] ranges for gradients, minor things like that
- 20:51:21 [heycam]
- ED: might be a good idea to check
- 20:51:35 [heycam]
- ED: since we have that name correspondence table, the files could be diffed to see if there are major changes
- 20:51:41 [heycam]
- ED: shouldn't take too long
- 20:51:44 [ChrisL]
- yes i agree a pairwise diff would eb good looking for non-obvious changes
- 20:52:29 [heycam]
- ED: for the moving over would we create new files and lose the history?
- 20:53:46 [heycam]
- ED: i don't know if it's hard to copy them over without the history then
- 20:54:05 [heycam]
- CL: are we copying 1.1? or 1.2T and changing them back?
- 20:54:18 [heycam]
- ED: i'd like to take the 1.2T ones that have appropriate changes from the 1.1 versions
- 20:54:56 [ed]
- s/1.2T/1.1 and then diff the 1.2T ones against these/
- 20:56:03 [heycam]
- ACTION: Erik to move the 1.1 tests to public cvs, checking diffs against the corresponding 1.2T tests
- 20:56:03 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-2382 - Move the 1.1 tests to public cvs, checking diffs against the corresponding 1.2T tests [on Erik Dahlström - due 2008-12-22].
- 20:56:17 [heycam]
- AG: are we using the new test template when we move them over?
- 20:56:25 [heycam]
- ED: that'd be a followup thing i guess
- 20:57:07 [heycam]
- CL: i'd copy and include in the commit log a pointer to the old file
- 20:58:34 [heycam]
- ACTION: Cameron to summarise last telcon's discussions on svg-in-html and reply to the existing thread
- 20:58:34 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-2383 - Summarise last telcon's discussions on svg-in-html and reply to the existing thread [on Cameron McCormack - due 2008-12-22].
- 21:00:43 [Zakim]
- -shepazu
- 21:00:44 [Zakim]
- -heycam
- 21:00:45 [Zakim]
- -anthony
- 21:00:46 [Zakim]
- -ChrisL
- 21:00:46 [Zakim]
- -ed
- 21:00:48 [Zakim]
- GA_SVGWG()2:30PM has ended
- 21:00:49 [Zakim]
- Attendees were shepazu, [IPcaller], ed, heycam, anthony, ChrisL
- 21:01:28 [heycam]
- RRSAgent, make minutes
- 21:01:28 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/15-svg-minutes.html heycam
- 22:00:44 [heycam]
- heycam has joined #svg
- 22:43:19 [shepazu]
- shepazu has joined #svg
- 23:29:23 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #svg