SVG Working Group Teleconference -- 09 Feb 2009

<trackbot> Date: 09 February 2009

<heycam> general@svg.bugs

<scribe> Scribe: anthony

Goals for the F2F

CMC: I thought it would be good to list a few things we want to get done
... by the end of the face-to-face
... the wiki page has topics
... but there are a few things we should aim to complete
... The 3 I listed in the agenda there
... were
... Publish the 1.1 Errata, there are a few left to do
... we decided to postpone the remaining items for the face-to-face
... I wasn't sure if we had a goal of publishing the 1.1 2nd Edition

ED: That might be a bit optimistic
... perhaps if it was in better shape
... especially if we say that we need tests for all of them

DS: Ok, how about we say we have actions assigned to all of items

ED: I say, yes publish the errata
... but we should have actions for the items that need tests

CMC: We should publish as frequent as possible

DS: I think given the backlog at the moment it may be difficult this time. I think that every time we add an

errata we should publish a new edition

CMC: The third item was coming to the conclusion about SVG in HTML
... but that realises on me getting the summary on the HTML parser done
... I'll send that to the group this week
... before the face-to-face

ED: It would be good to have some sort of email sent off during the face-to-face or after
... with our conclusions

<ed__> ...to the html wg

CMC: Anything else?

AG: I think it would be good to try to publish the Compositing module

DS: Don't think it will be possible to publish during the face-to-face
... but after the face-to-face

CL: We can get a conclusion to publish

CMC: They seem to be reasonable large goals to have

ED: There are a few issues on the Filters page that I would like to see resolved
... by the end of the face-to-face
... perhaps it would be ok to publish after the face-to-face
... but I do have a lot of actions to complete

Progress on completing remaining SVG 1.1 errata

CMC: I've listed in the agenda the actions I think that need to get done before the face-to-face
... any other ones have been postponed for discussion at the face-to-face

<heycam> ACTION-1513?

<trackbot> ACTION-1513 does not exist

<heycam> ACTION-2404?

<trackbot> ACTION-2404 -- Doug Schepers to add errata item for root overflow -- due 2009-01-22 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2404

DS: The first one 1513 is something that JW should review and make sure we have right
... and the second one I should be able to get it done

CMC: The third one is for JW to investigate the zoom stuff
... they are probably not critical to get done
... but it we can always discuss them with the other errata actions

Problem with text-ws-02-t

ED: I was debugging this test
... we have a tests that uses some non-breaking face
... I fixed the test now so it is correct in Opera
... I also went ahead and fixed some image patches that seemed wrong

CL: Is the font internal
... or referenced?

ED: It's the SVG-free-sans
... I think this is the only test that uses non-breaking space
... only really useful in textArea
... but I haven't had a chance to test that

Action-2408

<heycam> ACTION-2408?

<trackbot> ACTION-2408 -- Cameron McCormack to create a test for http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#cleanup-wording-underlying-value (check if we have a test for it in the 1.2T testsuite) and then move the erratum to proposed -- due 2009-01-26 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2408

CMC: This was an action on me to make the errata for 1.1 so that it is consistent with Tiny
... so that it is consistent with underlying values
... we had to make some changes to that area due to feedback

<heycam> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#cleanup-wording-underlying-value

CMC: the effect of that is during scales you need to consider that the underlying value is 1 and not 0
... initially
... So as well as porting back two paragraphs that were inserted into Tiny because of this
... I've inserted a new one, to explicitly deal with that case
... and added an example
... I wanted to ask if it is ok to move this to proposed

ED: The test case link is incorrect

CMC: The test doesn't link to anywhere useful
... there is a test I've created with that name

CL: You put it in the 1.1 test suite?

CMC: Yes, I guess it should also go in the Tiny test suite

<heycam> ACTION: Cameron to put animate-elem-86-t in the 1.2T test suite too [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/09-svg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2448 - Put animate-elem-86-t in the 1.2T test suite too [on Cameron McCormack - due 2009-02-16].

<ChrisL> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/animate-elem-86-t.svg

<ed__> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/svg/animate-elem-86-t.svg

ED: There is also an animate 86 in the Tiny test suite

CL: There is also one in the 1.1 test suite

CMC: It might be animate-elem-87

<ChrisL> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/animate-elem-87-t.svg

<heycam> ACTION-2448: should be animate-elem-87

<trackbot> ACTION-2448 Put animate-elem-86-t in the 1.2T test suite too notes added

CL: Looks ok to me

CMC: It might be useful to have that short example in Tiny as well

CL: Yes

CMC: Ok, move this to proposed

SVG media type registration

DS: There have been a couple of emails been going around for this
... just wondering if the spec is being updated

CL: Yes, I'm going through updating it. Last time I was updating was 3 years ago
... I noticed on the IG that people were wondering what was happening

DS: Do you have a timeline?

CL: I'm working on this as a priority
... but I don't know what the publication process for this is
... what happens is the SVG spec references a part in the document, but the document doesn't contain the section that's referenced

DS: What are the new issues that have come up?

CL: There should be universal fragment syntax for anything that's XML
... and that's going to be listed as an issue

DS: Do you anticipate any problems?

CL: There maybe some discussion with the XML people
... but it shouldn't be to difficult to get it to a draft for the web

DS: So as soon as we get this published we get the MIME type right?

CL: I don't know if we need to wait until it's an RFC

DS: OK, sounds like you're on it

CL: You don't think there is anyway of short cutting it?
... we are not the only media type waiting to be registered though

DS: Time frame?

CL: I expect to have the document ready in a week. But I don't know how long publication will take
... then once it becomes as a web draft I don't know how long it will take for it to be registered
... and whether it needs to be an RFC

DS: the issue raised in the SVG IG is rather urgent, because the poster's ISP won't put the SVG MIME Type on their server since it isn't registered
... because it wasn't a registered MIME type

MIME Types

add proper mimetype from dev.w3.org for *.mml files

ED: if you go to the dev.w3.org page

<heycam> s/Topic: add proper mimetype.*//

ED: and you go to the MathML area you're given a dialog to download
... and it's not displayed

<ed__> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/modules/filters/master/mathml/

DS: Do you have a link?

ED: If you click any of the files in that directory you'll get a download dialog
... if given the wrong MIME type it will not display

DS: Is MathML a registered MIME type?

ED: Not sure

DS: and MML is the extension?

ED: Yes

<ed__> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt

ED: Yes, it's in here
... Application/mathml+xml

DS: Ok, I'll talk to the system to get them to put that into our server

ED: Ok

<scribe> ACTION: Doug to Talk to the SysAdmin team to put the MathML MIME type on the servers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/09-svg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2449 - Talk to the SysAdmin team to put the MathML MIME type on the servers [on Doug Schepers - due 2009-02-16].

ED: Oh wait, I just read it now

<ed__> However, no content type has yet

<ed__> been registered for MathML and so this media type should not be used

<ed__> until such registration has been completed.

ED: It's listed in the RFC

CL: You're reading that 3023, that's not the right place
... the thing is that's not the registery
... let me just find where it is

<ChrisL> http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/

CL: No it's not registered

ED: I guess I can put them there as XML files. That might make it work

CL: It could be that MathML is waiting for that to happen

DS: I did see a proposal for it - for registration

<shepazu> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2003-August/000996.html

DS: It was asked to be registered in 2003

CL: He thought that making a web draft was only thing that had to be done

Issues and Actions from the old tracker

CMC: I was having a look the other day from the old tracker
... and there seems to be a lot of old issues that were not addressed
... that could probably be carried across
... I've been going through and seeing if there are still relevant

CL: Some of them, were not done, or some a decision was made but then later on a different decision was made

ISSUE-2212

<heycam> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.html#iso8601-reference-link

<heycam> ISSUE-2212?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2212 -- SVG 1.1 Spec ISO8601 reference links to ICC spec -- RAISED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2212

CMC: That was just a simple error going to the wrong place

ED: Is that something you need an actual errata for?

CMC: You do have different classes of errata
... I guess it's a bit strange with the relative links and how they get resolved in the errata document
... we all agree we can move that one to proposed

ISSUE-2215

<heycam> ISSUE-2215?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2215 -- Error in DTD extensibility example -- RAISED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2215

<heycam> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#dtd-extensibility-example-incorrect

CMC: This is an issue that CL raised a while ago
... the method in the extensibility chapter was wrong
... in its use of the DTD
... I've made an errata for that one as well

CL: I was wondering if we should make a RelaxNG for SVG 1.1

DS: I think it would probably be good
... I thought it would be useful
... because 1.1 is a real implementation target
... my concern is if we start doing the RelaxNG for 1.1
... we might run into problems with incompatibilities

CL: The thing is people are not using the DTD much
... we'd encourage people not put the DTD in their files
... I think in Tiny 1.2 we explicitly discourage people from adding DTD to the files

DS: My concern is that if start doing work on older specs
... we set ourselves up for more work on older specs
... we could behind the scenes tell people not to put things in the files
... i.e. tell Inkscape not to put DTDs in the file
... We are trying to move away with the doctype to allow inclusion in HTML

CL: Well yes it would need to be migrated to the top of the document

DS: This is why I'm saying we need to work out some macro expansion thing that doesn't use doctypes or entities

CL: How's HTML doing it?

<ChrisL> That erratum looks good to me

DS: We should ask them. I don't know

<ed__> <!DOCTYPE svg> ?

DS: HTML editors don't do that very much. SVG editors do

CL: In RelaxNG is easily extensible
... you don't have to declare anything

ED: The errata looks fine to me as well

ISSUE-2209

<heycam> ISSUE-2209?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2209 -- Paced animation of complex types inconsistent with SVG Tiny 1.2 -- RAISED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2209

CMC: This issue is for the definition of pacing
... in Tiny we figured that some of the animations were not pace-able
... we should add an errata to 1.1 so they align
... Brian B was asking which one to use
... so it's confusing at the moment

ED: It make sense to have the one definition. I'd prefer the 1.2 Tiny one in this case

CL: I think that make sense

<scribe> ACTION: Cameron to Make an errata item that aligns the pace animation in 1.1 Full with that in 1.2 Tiny [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/09-svg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2450 - Make an errata item that aligns the pace animation in 1.1 Full with that in 1.2 Tiny [on Cameron McCormack - due 2009-02-16].

ISSUE-2210

<heycam> ISSUE-2210?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2210 -- Define liveness of SVGTransform.matrix -- RAISED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2210

ED: Sounds familiar to something I discussed a while ago

CMC: There is something similar in the errata

CL: I wonder why we allow you to use setMatrix on that
... what's the value of that?

CMC: There's like setScale, setTranslate
... I think the idea is to allow you to pick a matrix and set the values for it
... that errata doesn't deal with the liveness of the SVG Matrix stored

ED: I might have had an action on this, perhaps in the old tracker
... I don't see anything
... I don't know if we want to have a new errata tiem
... or if we want to use the existing one

CMC: Don't know, you could just edit that one

<scribe> ACTION: Erik to Modify the current errata item on SVGTransform.matrix that addresses ISSUE-2210 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/09-svg-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2451 - Modify the current errata item on SVGTransform.matrix that addresses ISSUE-2210 [on Erik Dahlström - due 2009-02-16].

Update on new stuff

DS: I've started on the new spec (2.0)?
... the place holder
... for the stuff
... that we don't know where it goes
... I'm rearranging the table of contents
... and I don't think that I've made any progress on any other stuff I'm suppose to be editing
... I think the other spec I'd probably take on is the accessibility spec for aria-roles in SVG

CMC: For me I haven't figured out the Use Case and Requirements
... so perhaps for the face-to-face I could finish that
... and that will be finialised to be published

DS: Do you think that there'll be much push back on that?

CMC: Don't know
... I'm not sure how detailed the use cases have to be

DS: CL do you think the CSS WG will object to us doing anything like this, in general?

CL: On layout, I'd imagine they'd say to use parts of their stuff
... The document needs to have a lot of diagrams

CMC: I do plan on having some diagrams in there

<ChrisL> possibly display:table-cell and such. Not clear that would actually work, though

DS: Maybe we should also have a section that says "out of scope" and maybe list things that
... can be done with SVG or SVG+CSS
... and therefore we are bringing up new set of requirements
... that way we can say we are not trying to duplicate what CSS is doing

CMC: I think for this requirements document I don't want to go with specific syntax in mind

DS: If you haven't added this already, for things that are connect - be able to indicate that the layout establishes relationships between objects
... which is different to CSS
... in SVG since the layout is intending on visually showing a relationship
... we should allow for people to say this is a semantic

CL: Haven't been working so much on the Vector Effects because I've had some more pressing things to sort out
... but I will have some stuff to talk about at the next telcon

ED: I will try to put as much time as I can to doing Actions for the filters

<shepazu> Action-2444?

<trackbot> ACTION-2444 -- Erik Dahlström to write up <image> viewBox proposal and test current UAs -- due 2009-02-12 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2444

- DRAFT -

SVG Working Group Teleconference

09 Feb 2009

Attendees

Contents