06:30:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #svg
06:30:40 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/04-svg-irc
06:30:42 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
06:30:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #svg
06:30:44 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
06:30:44 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()2:30AM scheduled to start now
06:30:45 <trackbot> Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
06:30:45 <trackbot> Date: 04 May 2009
06:31:00 <Zakim> GA_SVGWG()2:30AM has now started
06:31:07 <Zakim> +Doug_Schepers
06:31:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
06:31:20 <heycam> Zakim, [ is me
06:31:20 <Zakim> +heycam; got it
06:31:26 <Zakim> +??P2
06:31:33 <ed> Zakim, ??P2 is me
06:31:33 <Zakim> +ed; got it
06:31:41 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
06:31:47 <anthony> Zakim, [IP is me
06:31:47 <Zakim> +anthony; got it
06:35:31 <heycam> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009AprJun/0093.html
06:36:29 <heycam> Scribe: Anthony
06:36:31 <shepazu> http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item66
06:36:37 <heycam> ScribeNick: anthony 
06:36:47 <heycam> Topic: Tighten up the implicit lineto commands in the path syntax
06:36:51 <heycam> ISSUE-2268?
06:36:51 <trackbot> ISSUE-2268 -- Tighten up the implicit lineto commands in the path syntax -- RAISED
06:36:51 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2268
06:37:54 <heycam> DS: I think there are two sensible answers to this
06:37:58 <heycam> ... one, they're always absolute
06:38:08 <heycam> ... (or relative, but absolute makes more sense)
06:38:13 <heycam> ED: i tested a few implementations
06:38:26 <heycam> ... if you have a relative 'm', then you have relative 'l's
06:38:38 <heycam> ... and if you have an absolute 'M', then you have absolute 'L's
06:38:50 <heycam> DS: that's the second sensible one
06:39:16 <anthony> CM: Erik, you were saying that the first line to is absolute?
06:39:28 <anthony> ED: Even if it's lower case 'm' it will be absolute
06:39:45 <anthony> CM: All the subsequent implicit line-to's
06:39:53 <anthony> ED: That's what the test cases showed
06:39:57 <anthony> CM: I guess that makes sense
06:40:12 <anthony> ... You can always not use implicit lines if you want particular behavior
06:40:52 <anthony> ED: I couldn't find any implementation that behaved differently
06:40:57 <anthony> ... from the spec
06:41:02 <anthony> .. but I didn't test ASV
06:41:27 <ed> s/... from the spec//
06:44:08 <anthony> DS: Implementations, the first 'm' whether capital is not is always absolute then everything after is absolute
06:44:29 <anthony> ... need to have a lower case 'm' after the first to make line-to commands relative
06:45:12 <anthony> CM: Are we going to errata this for 1.1F and 1.2T?
06:45:14 <Zakim> +ChrisL
06:45:21 <anthony> ED: Yes we should
06:46:27 <anthony> ACTION: Anthony to Create an errata of the implicit line to problem mentioned on the list
06:46:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2542 - Create an errata of the implicit line to problem mentioned on the list [on Anthony Grasso - due 2009-05-11].
06:46:57 <anthony> Topic: Update on 1.1F 2nd Edition
06:47:11 <anthony> CM: All of the main chapters are now building properly
06:47:31 <anthony> ... really for the building side of things is to get the element and attribute appendix building
06:47:34 <ChrisL> ChrisL has joined #svg
06:47:41 <anthony> ... and to get the element summaries automatically generated from the RNG
06:48:05 <anthony> ... Just need to be careful about updating things
06:48:11 <anthony> ... what I'll do next is generate diffs
06:48:16 <anthony> ... against the current 1.1
06:48:23 <anthony> ... so I get an idea of what's changed
06:48:31 <anthony> ... then can start folding in the errata
06:48:38 <anthony> ... are we going to publish the errata again
06:48:45 <anthony> ... before 1.1F 2nd Edition is published?
06:49:02 <anthony> CL: If it hasn't gone in we probably should
06:49:10 <anthony> ED: Would be good to encourage feedback
06:49:14 <anthony> ... before it goes in
06:49:23 <anthony> CM: I believe it only goes to AC for review
06:49:25 <anthony> CL: That's right
06:49:33 <anthony> ... normally the Errata gets published
06:49:37 <anthony> ... then people have a chance to comment
06:49:56 <anthony> CM: So there are changes I've made that aren't in the errata document
06:50:03 <anthony> ... I can still generate a change long to put in the spec
06:50:15 <anthony> CL: It depends what class of thing
06:50:18 <anthony> ... is being fixed as we go
06:50:28 <anthony> ... are you saying we should have 2nd sitting in the wings
06:50:33 <anthony> ... then produce a big errata thing from that?
06:50:38 <anthony> CM: I guess that's my question
06:50:41 <anthony> ... if the change long is enough
06:50:56 <anthony> ... then generating a change long doesn't seem a good use of time
06:51:29 <anthony> AG: I've added some errata in from ages ago
06:51:35 <anthony> CM: From your commit log I'll check
06:51:42 <anthony> ... the diff logs
06:51:52 <anthony> ... so may be after Anthony puts this errata in
06:52:12 <anthony> ... then publish the errata
06:52:23 <anthony> ... from then on just make changes to the actual check
06:52:28 <anthony> ... rather then put them in the errata
06:52:37 <anthony> ... so this errata publication will be the last errata publication
06:52:42 <anthony> ... does that seem reasonable?
06:52:57 <anthony> ED: The 2nd edition check is public
06:53:03 <anthony> ... so people can see the changes
06:53:26 <anthony> CM: Should we email the list for feedback before we start?
06:53:37 <anthony> ED: We have to I think
06:54:21 <anthony> CM: So Anthony do you want to let me know once you've put the errata in?
06:54:23 <anthony> AG: Yes
06:54:42 <anthony> DS: That said about the winder review, it might be good to get wider review
06:54:50 <anthony> ... now that we're not caught up in doing SVG Tiny 1.2
06:55:10 <ed> s/2nd edition check/2nd edition spec/
06:55:22 <anthony> ... it might be useful to get real feedback from implementors and others
06:55:39 <anthony> CL: We've already had real feedback
06:56:00 <anthony> ... I don't want to sort of give the message that we are going to do a whole lot more changes
06:56:37 <anthony> ... once the errata gets a bit long
06:56:45 <anthony> ... you put it all in
06:56:50 <anthony> ... then start a new errata
06:57:33 <anthony> Topic: Some questions Heycam had about SVG Fonts
06:57:35 <heycam> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009AprJun/0084.html
06:57:45 <anthony> CM: As I was going through 1.1F
06:57:58 <anthony> ... I noticed there was differences between SVG Fonts between 1.1F and 1.2T
06:58:15 <anthony> ... in 1.1F the Font face element has children font-face-src and definition-src
06:58:28 <anthony> ... font-face-src is the matching properties
06:58:38 <anthony> ... and that inside that you have a number of font-face-uri elements
06:58:43 <anthony> ... that point to the actual font file
06:58:49 <anthony> ... and font-name elements
06:58:53 <anthony> ... that point to local
06:58:58 <anthony> ... fonts installed on the system
06:59:05 <anthony> ... in 1.2T name wasn't there
06:59:09 <anthony> ... and was it deliberate?
06:59:11 <anthony> CL: It was
07:00:05 <ChrisL> i am trying to respond to your question
07:00:57 <Zakim> -heycam
07:01:56 <Zakim> +??P1
07:01:59 <heycam> Zakim, ??P1 is me
07:01:59 <Zakim> +heycam; got it
07:02:28 <anthony> CL: So, In CSS 2, the idea was, you could have both local aliases and remote aliases
07:02:40 <anthony> ... so I could say font-face=foo corresponds to bar
07:02:57 <anthony> ... for Tiny we felt this was too complex
07:03:00 <anthony> ... and not needed
07:03:29 <anthony> ... we just chopped it down to a single URI to make it more simple
07:03:41 <anthony> ... you could have multiple URI that are a combination of multiple fonts
07:04:16 <anthony> ... so when we put it down to a single URI the container wasn't needed anymore
07:04:23 <anthony> ... definition-src
07:04:53 <anthony> CM: I thought that definition-src was you could set up a font and reuse it
07:05:25 <anthony> CL: At one point we talked about constructing composite fonts and you point off to the fonts and give it a name
07:05:33 <anthony> ... but I don't think we tested the composite part in Tiny
07:06:24 <anthony> ... this was moved over to CSS 3
07:06:51 <anthony> CM: Can we drop definition-src from 1.1?
07:06:55 <anthony> CL: Yes
07:07:24 <anthony> ... the original idea was apart from downloading fonts, you might synthesize them
07:07:56 <anthony> CM: The difference between the content models?
07:08:02 <anthony> CL: I'm not sure that was deliberate
07:08:44 <anthony> CM: I think it would be ok to change 1.1F to say 0 or 1 definition-src
07:08:55 <anthony> ... and 1 or more font-face-src
07:09:13 <anthony> CL: 1.1. was incorrect because theoretically you could say a local font and not give a URI for it
07:09:29 <anthony> ... there has to be at least one font-face-src
07:09:38 <anthony> CM: So 1 or more or just 1?
07:09:42 <anthony> CL: Just 1
07:10:01 <anthony> CM: Then for Tiny where it says 0 or more should we update to say 1 or more or 1 exactly?
07:10:52 <anthony> CL: So basically it should have exactly 1
07:12:01 <anthony> ACTION: Cameron to Fix and align the font elements regarding font-face-src and definition-src in SVG 1.1F and SVG 1.2T
07:12:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2543 - Fix and align the font elements regarding font-face-src and definition-src in SVG 1.1F and SVG 1.2T [on Cameron McCormack - due 2009-05-11].
07:13:41 <anthony> CM: Need to see if there is a test for the units-per-em problem where the default is 1000
07:13:45 <anthony> CL: There isn't one
07:14:25 <anthony> ACTION: Cameron to Make a test for default units per em value
07:14:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2544 - Make a test for default units per em value [on Cameron McCormack - due 2009-05-11].
07:16:25 <heycam> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009AprJun/0087.html
07:17:08 <anthony> CL: There are not media types
07:17:18 <anthony> ... and there is not likely to be
07:17:41 <anthony> ... they should be quoted
07:18:00 <anthony> CM: My suggestion with the quoted properties
07:18:09 <anthony> ... is that the format you want to support?
07:18:16 <anthony> ... are they going to have spaces in them?
07:18:42 <anthony> CL: they're not going to have spaces in them more so different formats will have different URI
07:18:51 <anthony> ... since its separate now
07:18:58 <anthony> ... it's awkward to pair them up
07:19:36 <anthony> ... so really what we want to have is an attribute
07:19:40 <anthony> ... on font-face-uri
07:19:53 <anthony> ... and it's a separate child which means you can't group them
07:20:05 <anthony> ... so if you have multiple font-face-uris and font-face-formats
07:20:12 <anthony> ... you can't say how they pair up
07:20:40 <anthony> ED: So if you have multiple URIs with multiple formats I don't think we say how we handle them
07:20:49 <anthony> CM: The string attribute exists already
07:20:57 <anthony> CL: We actually called it string?
07:20:59 <ed> s/URIs/font-face-uri elements/
07:21:14 <anthony> CM: Having an attribute on font-face-uri might be better
07:21:26 <anthony> CL: And we can say that brings it closer to existing practices
07:21:29 <anthony> ... to what CSS does
07:22:11 <anthony> CM: At the moment we don't have any tests that have font-face-format in them
07:22:31 <anthony> ED: Not sure if it's testable
07:22:54 <anthony> CL: I think it was susceptible to having multiple formats
07:23:01 <anthony> ... I'd rather have it as an attribute
07:23:13 <anthony> ... the question becomes what do we do for 1.2T
07:23:22 <anthony> CM: I think you're correct it's not in 1.2T
07:23:29 <anthony> CL: There is one other complication
07:23:44 <anthony> ... what happens if you say it's a type 1 font, but then when it comes back and it's Open type font
07:23:58 <anthony> ... so it said it's something it wasn't
07:24:20 <anthony> ... [reads section in CSS3 about format hint]
07:24:39 <anthony> CM: so you can provide more than one
07:24:48 <anthony> ... that's the really why I was asking the question about the syntax
07:24:57 <anthony> ... because of the list inside the attribute
07:25:14 <anthony> CL: Especially for Open Type you can sub types.
07:25:37 <anthony> ... You can actually point to a single font file that can have multiple formats
07:25:48 <anthony> ... I think it's still a bad design to have a format child
07:26:23 <anthony> DS: I can see Doug's point about this
07:26:53 <anthony> CL: Although making a change in an untested part of the spec brings us in to line with XSL
07:27:30 <anthony> DS: I don't object to us starting to have wording that defines this better, but this seems to be a strong difference
07:27:39 <anthony> ... if it were up to me we would work on this for SVG 2.0
07:27:58 <anthony> CL: We can define it but it'll look ugly
07:28:25 <anthony> ED: Since tiny doesn't have font-face-format
07:28:32 <anthony> ... another solution is to drop it from 1.1F
07:28:36 <anthony> ... and add it to 2.0
07:28:42 <anthony> CL: I'm even less happy with that one
07:29:01 <anthony> ... I'd rather keep the CSS and XSL serialisations as close as possible
07:29:10 <anthony> CM: The only issue at the moment is it's not defined
07:29:20 <anthony> ... I think it would look a bit cleaner as an attribute
07:29:33 <anthony> CL: It's a bit more clunky than what it needs to be
07:30:39 <anthony> CM: Keep it as an element?
07:30:41 <anthony> CL: ok
07:30:47 <anthony> CM: Change the tests
07:31:19 <anthony> ... to have the quotes inside the format
07:31:37 <anthony> CL: So ED Opera 10 does look at it?
07:31:47 <anthony> ED: Yes it does
07:31:52 <anthony> ... I think if you leave off the quotes
07:31:58 <anthony> ... it would ignore the whole thing
07:32:07 <anthony> ... because it wouldn't parse correctly
07:32:15 <anthony> ... I locally fixed some of the tests
07:32:24 <anthony> CL: Can you check those in please
07:32:26 <anthony> ED: Sure
07:32:50 <anthony> ACTION: Erik to Commit his local copy of the font tests that have the fixed quotes
07:32:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2545 - Commit his local copy of the font tests that have the fixed quotes [on Erik Dahlström - due 2009-05-11].
07:33:10 <anthony> CM: I guess it would be hard to test, if we are copying the CSS behavior as being a should
07:33:18 <anthony> CL: Should makes it a bit untestable
07:33:27 <anthony> CM: You could construct a test that has two possible renderings
07:33:37 <anthony> ED: Depends on how hard you are on the parsing of the rule
07:33:51 <anthony> ... if it's not correct grammar then you should ignore it
07:33:59 <anthony> CL: Right, and we don't have that
07:34:05 <anthony> ... about dropping the whole rule
07:34:11 <anthony> ... that argues with the tight coupling
07:34:58 <anthony> DS: I think you can test it
07:35:01 <anthony> ... like you said
07:35:06 <anthony> ... having two different paths
07:35:18 <anthony> ... but each path being specific about what it tests
07:35:36 <anthony> CM: Yeah, if the glyph comes out as a circle or a square then it passes
07:35:40 <anthony> DS: Right
07:35:53 <anthony> ... have strict criteria about the pass
07:36:01 <anthony> ... or about it not downloading it
07:36:16 <anthony> CL: So the issue is you don't have to download it, but if you do then that's ok
07:37:26 <anthony> Topic: Heycam asking about references in 1.1F 2nd
07:37:31 <heycam> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009AprJun/0090.html
07:37:40 <anthony> CL: In 1.1F we use DOM 2 because that was the current one at the time
07:37:51 <anthony> ... in 1.2T we started reference DOM 3 events
07:38:36 <anthony> ... is it possible to point to DOM 3 core but only reference the DOM 2 parts
07:38:58 <anthony> ... if you update the reference are you asking if we have to do all that stuff?
07:39:02 <anthony> CM:Yes
07:39:12 <anthony> ... compared to other references where it's just bug fixes
07:39:38 <anthony> CL: BCT-47
07:39:57 <anthony> CM: Is reference it a good idea?
07:40:00 <anthony> CL: Yes it is
07:40:05 <anthony> ... XML already made that change
07:40:14 <anthony> ... if you can point to the latest version
07:41:09 <anthony> s/BCT/BCP/
07:41:17 <anthony> CL: I agree we should not add a reference XML 1.1
07:41:33 <anthony> DS: XML 1.1 is mostly being folded in to XML 1.0
07:41:59 <anthony> CL: I think eventually we'll have to errata Tiny and reference XML 1.0
07:42:09 <anthony> CM: So there is a paragraph about XSLT 2
07:42:19 <anthony> ... they are referenced as informative things
07:42:36 <anthony> ... and Tiny references them to be a bit more complete
07:43:00 <anthony> ... alright I'll do those changes
07:43:03 <shepazu> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009May/0015.html
07:43:27 <anthony> Topic: foreignObject and position:fixed children
07:43:31 <anthony> CL: He has a good point
07:43:39 <anthony> ... yes it should
07:43:45 <anthony> ... establish a new containing block
07:44:14 <anthony> CM: My feeling is like foreignObject is like object in HTML
07:44:19 <anthony> ED: I agree
07:45:19 <anthony> ACTION: Chris to Respond to Jonathan's email regarding foreignObject
07:45:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2546 - Respond to Jonathan's email regarding foreignObject [on Chris Lilley - due 2009-05-11].
07:45:45 <anthony> DS: Regrets for me on Weds
07:45:54 <anthony> CL: Same for me and the following week
07:46:14 <anthony> ED: Do we want to cancel the Wed telcon?
07:46:17 <anthony> CM: I don't mind
07:50:21 <Zakim> -Doug_Schepers
07:50:43 <anthony> Topic: DTD in 1.1F 2nd
07:50:52 <anthony> CM: We already decided to down play them
07:51:02 <anthony> ... I had already taken out the sections for the content set
07:51:07 <anthony> ... which do mapping
07:51:21 <anthony> ... that might have been over done
07:51:34 <anthony> ... because sections say chapters can be put in to a module
07:51:44 <anthony> CL: I think we should down play it
07:51:53 <anthony> ... doesn't think it adds any value in practice
07:52:04 <anthony> CM: The organisation is going to be there in the DTD
07:52:17 <anthony> ... in the introduction there is a section where it talks about these modules
07:52:32 <heycam> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/intro.html#Modularization
07:52:36 <anthony> CL: I don't really want to drive people down that path
07:53:07 <anthony> CM: I can do without the RNG for now
07:53:28 <anthony> ... getting the attribute and element appendix published, I'll need the RNG for that
07:53:42 <anthony> ... so in the intro there's a bit about the collections
07:53:47 <anthony> ... in the main chapters
07:54:10 <heycam> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/shapes.html#shape-mod
07:54:13 <anthony> CL: There's a horrible thing there
07:54:23 <anthony> ... it is an error to include a subset and superset of the same group
07:54:29 <anthony> ... I don't think we should say that
07:54:42 <anthony> CM: I think it's going to fall out to be an error
07:54:50 <anthony> CL: Maybe we should change the wording to say that
07:55:12 <anthony> ... "Including a superset and a subset of the same group will produce an error"
07:55:35 <anthony> CM: in the main chapters it includes some parts of the DTD
07:55:40 <anthony> ... I've taken them out
07:55:57 <anthony> ... but I'm just wondering if that's ok, because of the module structure
07:56:14 <anthony> ED: I think 1.2T and 1.1T references those tables
07:56:29 <anthony> ... so I think they still have to be there
07:56:37 <anthony> ... otherwise we'll have to change them to point somewhere else
07:56:46 <ed> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile11/
07:56:56 <anthony> ... plenty of links there to those type of modules
07:57:18 <anthony> CM: The only reason I wanted to remove them
07:57:19 <ed> s/1.2T and/
07:57:34 <ed> s/1.1T/1.1 Mobile (basic/tiny)/
07:57:49 <anthony> ... was because they were cluttering up the chapters
07:58:29 <ChrisL> Suggest changing the tite from, say, 9.9 Shape Module to 9.9 Shape DTD Module
07:58:55 <anthony> ... If you validate for DTD doesn't guarantee conformance
07:58:58 <anthony> ... and the same for the RNG
07:59:10 <anthony> CL: So I suggest changing the name of the section heading
07:59:17 <anthony> s/tite/title/
07:59:35 <anthony> CL: For adding new stuff, I'll try to conform that module structure
07:59:39 <ed> s/1.2T and//
08:00:26 <anthony> ... I'm a little bit concerned that how to be sure that everything that was previous valid to the RNG
08:00:37 <anthony> s/RNG/DTD/
08:00:46 <anthony> ... is now valid to the RNG
08:01:18 <anthony> ... I think there are tools that let you take a DTD that generates random content that conforms to it
08:01:40 <anthony> ... I'm wondering if it will create a bunch of weird things
08:01:57 <anthony> CM: So there are various things that couldn't be expressed in the DTD that we want in the RNG
08:02:07 <anthony> CL: But if something is invalid to the DTD it should also be invalid to the RNG
08:02:48 <anthony> CM: The DTD and the schema can show that you have something that doesn't conform
08:03:23 <Zakim> -anthony
08:03:25 <Zakim> -ed
08:03:25 <Zakim> -heycam
08:03:26 <Zakim> -ChrisL
08:03:26 <Zakim> GA_SVGWG()2:30AM has ended
08:03:27 <Zakim> Attendees were Doug_Schepers, [IPcaller], heycam, ed, anthony, ChrisL
08:04:07 <anthony> Zakim, bye
08:04:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #svg
08:04:15 <anthony> RRSAgent, make minutes
08:04:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/04-svg-minutes.html anthony
10:33:55 <ed_work> why isn't the call-for-exclusions mail from ian jacobs sent to public-svg-wg?
12:22:04 <eseidel> eseidel has joined #svg
12:57:13 <heycam> heycam has joined #svg
13:30:42 <ed_work> ed_work has joined #svg