IRC log of svg on 2009-03-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:30:36 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #svg
19:30:37 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-svg-irc
19:30:38 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:30:40 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
19:30:40 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()2:30PM scheduled to start now
19:30:41 [trackbot]
Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
19:30:41 [trackbot]
Date: 05 March 2009
19:30:52 [Zakim]
GA_SVGWG()2:30PM has now started
19:30:53 [Zakim]
+Shepazu
19:31:38 [Zakim]
+??P2
19:31:55 [ed_]
Zakim, ??P2 is me
19:31:55 [Zakim]
+ed_; got it
19:34:40 [jwatt]
gah
19:34:52 [jwatt]
skype credit takes 15 minutes to go through
19:37:06 [Zakim]
+??P11
19:37:11 [heycam]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
19:37:11 [Zakim]
+heycam; got it
19:38:08 [Zakim]
+??P1
19:39:16 [jwatt]
Zakim: I'm me
19:41:22 [ed_]
Zakim, pick a victim
19:41:22 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Shepazu
19:41:50 [heycam]
Chair: Erik
19:41:52 [heycam]
Scribe: Cameron
19:41:54 [ed_]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/0195.html
19:41:55 [heycam]
ScribeNick: heycam
19:41:56 [heycam]
Regrets: Chris
19:42:18 [heycam]
Topic: Telcon time change
19:42:43 [heycam]
ED: has everyone updated their entries?
19:43:15 [ed_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-svg-wg/2009JanMar/0002.html
19:44:16 [Zakim]
+??P3
19:44:28 [anthony]
Zakim, ??P3 is me
19:44:28 [Zakim]
+anthony; got it
19:53:03 [ed_]
http://mcc.id.au/2007/03/telcon/?op=impossible
20:15:54 [heycam]
[much discussion, we'll take it to the list]
20:16:22 [heycam]
Topic: SVG in text/html
20:16:30 [heycam]
ED: have the HTML WG had their telcon this week?
20:16:36 [heycam]
CM: no it's been cancelled this week
20:17:30 [heycam]
ED: there are a bunch of comments on the wiki page
20:17:39 [ed_]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG_in_text-html_2009
20:19:25 [ed_]
http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090304#l-310
20:20:10 [ed_]
http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090304#l-464
20:21:57 [heycam]
ED: we could go over each of the XXX comments in the wiki page
20:22:22 [heycam]
ED: the first one, should we say that this is "some feedback" on their proposal?
20:24:44 [heycam]
JW: personally, i'm not entirely comfortable with the whole SVG in text/html thing yet
20:25:05 [heycam]
... but i'm willing to go along with the proposal, and look at how it would work, and work on problems we find with it
20:26:36 [Zakim]
-??P1
20:26:55 [heycam]
Zakim, who is on the call?
20:26:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Shepazu, ed_, heycam, anthony
20:27:11 [Zakim]
+??P0
20:27:42 [jwatt_]
jwatt_ has joined #svg
20:29:13 [heycam]
JW: next, about parse errors
20:29:26 [heycam]
... someone was saying in some email that "parse error" means that the user agent can just abort parsing
20:29:36 [heycam]
... wondering if we should use the term "non-conforming"
20:29:50 [heycam]
ED: parse error is the term used for "abort or follow the steps in the spec"
20:29:54 [heycam]
... it's mostly meant for validators, i guess
20:30:38 [heycam]
CM: i think it is that browser would continue, but other tools could abort if they wanted
20:31:09 [heycam]
JW: do we know what happens when we get non-<svg> SVG open tags outside foreign content?
20:31:21 [heycam]
DS: i think they'll be placed in the svg namespace but with a lowercased name
20:31:51 [heycam]
http://livedom.validator.nu/
20:34:34 [heycam]
ED: if you put a <circle> as a child of the <body>, it gets put in the HTML namespace
20:34:53 [ed_]
http://livedom.validator.nu/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0D%0A%3Chtml%3E%0D%0A%3Cbody%3E%0D%0A%3Ccircle%20id%3D%22c%22%3E%0D%0A%3Cscript%3Ealert(document.getElementById(%22c%22).namespaceURI)%3B%0D%0A%3C%2Fscript%3E
20:34:56 [heycam]
http://livedom.validator.nu/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%3Cbody%3E%3Ccircle%3E%3Cscript%3Edocument.write(document.body.firstChild.namespaceURI)%3C%2Fscript%3E
20:36:09 [heycam]
ED: i think it would be similar if you find HTML elements inside SVG, unless it was one of those that break out of foreign content mode
20:36:14 [heycam]
... i.e., it would be put in the SVG namespace
20:36:53 [heycam]
JW: but it's nearly all HTML elements will break out?
20:37:24 [heycam]
DS: the list of elements that break out are the ones with no overlap
20:37:37 [heycam]
... the spec lists which elements break out
20:37:59 [heycam]
ED: is this something we need as an open point?
20:39:51 [heycam]
ED: i'll remove that and the "some feedback" point
20:40:16 [heycam]
ED: there's an XXX point about the camel case attributes
20:41:02 [heycam]
JW: we were talking about making, in future, all attribute names lowercase
20:41:15 [heycam]
... but looking at the attributes, there are lots that have mixed case currently
20:41:37 [heycam]
... if html5 and css are going to have to deal with those anyway, we just lose internal consistency with out spec
20:41:54 [heycam]
... if html5 and css have to deal with our mixed case attributes, i'm wondering what the value is
20:42:11 [heycam]
DS: many people mistype viewBox as viewbox
20:42:48 [heycam]
... we could say that either case is allowed for existing attributes
20:42:56 [heycam]
AG: and then slowly deprecate mixed case?
20:43:03 [heycam]
JW: we'll be stuck with mixed case
20:43:33 [heycam]
DS: i don't have a strong opinion either way
20:43:40 [heycam]
... we have stroke-width, that's not camel cased
20:43:47 [heycam]
... what do we lose by not camel casing attributes?
20:44:03 [heycam]
ED: those we have without camel casing is because of feedback from csswg (properties have to be consistent)
20:44:10 [heycam]
... don't see why attributes couldn't be consistent in the same fashion
20:44:38 [heycam]
JW: i think camel casing makes it easier to remember to type, if things are consistent
20:44:46 [heycam]
DS: so that would argue for making them all lowercase
20:44:59 [heycam]
AG: unless you wanted to distinguish between svg attributes and properties
20:45:06 [heycam]
ED: that makes it harder for us to use css for some of those
20:45:40 [heycam]
DS: the only thing i can think of is that by using camel casing we're avoiding name clashes with css/html
20:46:30 [heycam]
CM: i agree that making future attributes lowercase and leaving the current ones mixed case would be confusing
20:47:58 [heycam]
JW: i'm not sure we're all going to agree on this at the moment
20:48:34 [heycam]
ED: the point that we decided on doesn't exactly say what we're going to do, just that it would be preferable, for integration with css/html, if everything were lowercase
20:48:43 [heycam]
... and we can come back later to decide about mixed case attributes in svg
20:50:15 [heycam]
JW: ok i'll take the XXX point out and reword the paragraph before it
20:50:29 [heycam]
... one of the other XXXs i added was about entities
20:52:26 [heycam]
CM: think that is in there just because i pointed out that html entities would work in my summary email
20:53:40 [heycam]
JW: if we're going to say that we recognise that entities won't work, why aren't we saying that we also recognising that svg with elements with the wrong case won't work when copied out, etc.
20:54:26 [heycam]
DS: you could say that we'd like to strive for consistency in how entities are treated
20:55:04 [heycam]
... e.g. svg authoring tools sometimes generate entities, and html defines its own entities
20:55:14 [heycam]
... we could strive for common processing of them
20:55:31 [heycam]
JW: for us, that would mean accepting html entities. what would it mean for html?
20:56:26 [heycam]
DS: maybe html could define a way that it could parse and allow entities from a DOCTYPE inserted into the middle of a document. i think it's ugly, but...
20:56:53 [heycam]
... but it would make it easier for people importing content from an svg authoring tool
20:57:31 [heycam]
... there should be some consistent balance so that authors know what to expect when using entities
20:57:39 [heycam]
JW: agreed [on the balance]
20:57:56 [heycam]
JW: so doug'll remove that XXX and add some text?
20:58:37 [heycam]
ED: one last one, does parse error imply non-conforming?
20:58:52 [heycam]
JW: i was just saying the second sentence was redundant, so can be removed
20:59:41 [heycam]
ED: i'll do that
21:00:36 [heycam]
ED: so that's all XXX points
21:00:42 [heycam]
CM: then there are the points on the mailing list
21:00:52 [heycam]
Topic: WAI ARIA spec review
21:01:08 [heycam]
ED: it's going to last call, they're asking for comments before march 24
21:01:13 [heycam]
DS: i think it's april 15 now
21:01:22 [heycam]
... but we should review it and get back to them
21:01:30 [heycam]
ED: yes, i'll take an action to review it
21:01:41 [heycam]
... should we send our reviews to the svg list and then collate them?
21:01:44 [heycam]
DS: yes
21:02:02 [heycam]
ACTION: Erik to review WAI specs
21:02:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2484 - Review WAI specs [on Erik Dahlström - due 2009-03-12].
21:02:17 [heycam]
ACTION: Doug to review WAI specs
21:02:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2485 - Review WAI specs [on Doug Schepers - due 2009-03-12].
21:07:44 [Zakim]
-heycam
21:07:46 [Zakim]
-ed_
21:07:48 [Zakim]
-??P0
21:07:50 [Zakim]
-anthony
21:07:59 [Zakim]
-Shepazu
21:08:00 [Zakim]
GA_SVGWG()2:30PM has ended
21:08:01 [Zakim]
Attendees were Shepazu, ed_, heycam, anthony
21:10:23 [heycam]
RRSAgent, make minutes
21:10:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-svg-minutes.html heycam
21:12:00 [heycam]
Present: Doug, Erik, Cameron, Anthony, Jonathan
21:12:03 [heycam]
RRSAgent, make minutes
21:12:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-svg-minutes.html heycam
21:14:25 [heycam]
RRSAgent, bye
21:14:25 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-svg-actions.rdf :
21:14:25 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Erik to review WAI specs [1]
21:14:25 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-svg-irc#T21-02-02
21:14:25 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Doug to review WAI specs [2]
21:14:25 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-svg-irc#T21-02-17