06:30:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #svg
06:30:34 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/11-svg-irc
06:30:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
06:30:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
06:30:37 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()2:30AM scheduled to start now
06:30:38 <trackbot> Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
06:30:39 <trackbot> Date: 11 May 2009
06:32:43 <Zakim> GA_SVGWG()2:30AM has now started
06:32:50 <Zakim> +??P0
06:32:58 <Zakim> +??P1
06:33:11 <ed> Zakim, ??P0 is me
06:33:11 <Zakim> +ed; got it
06:33:14 <shepazu> Zakim, ??P1 is me
06:33:14 <Zakim> +shepazu; got it
06:33:20 <Zakim> +??P2
06:33:26 <heycam> Zakim, ??P2 is me
06:33:26 <Zakim> +heycam; got it
06:33:45 <Zakim> +??P3
06:33:50 <anthony> Zakim, ??P3 is me
06:33:50 <Zakim> +anthony; got it
06:33:58 <heycam> Chair: Cameron
06:34:10 <anthony> Scribe: anthony
06:34:39 <heycam> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009AprJun/0114.html
06:34:55 <anthony> Topic: Libre Graphics Meeting
06:35:00 <anthony> DS: Went well I think
06:35:07 <anthony> ... content is available online
06:37:04 <anthony> ... I talked to Intel about reviewing our specs 3D Transforms, filters
06:37:12 <anthony> ... good to get a H/W perspective
06:37:50 <anthony> ... I presented on the SVG scrubber
06:37:58 <heycam> scour
06:38:33 <anthony> ... I talked to the Inkscape guys and Scribus guys
06:38:42 <anthony> ... they had concerns about SVG in HTML
06:38:56 <anthony> ... I encouraged them to bring the concerns up on the mailing list
06:39:23 <anthony> CM: Outside of the Inkscape guys how much interest do you think there is in SVG
06:39:26 <anthony> DS: Quite a lot
06:39:31 <anthony> ... in the open graphics community
06:39:47 <anthony> ... there is a fair amount of discussion about SVG
06:40:06 <anthony> ... I also spoke to some designs
06:40:16 <anthony> s/designs/designers/
06:40:22 <anthony> ... and got their perspective on SVG
06:40:29 <anthony> ... they said they'd join the SVG mailing list
06:40:54 <anthony> ... we really need to start driving the Use Case and Requirements from a designer perspective
06:41:03 <anthony> ... I explained to the perspective thing
06:41:09 <anthony> ... they thought it was very useful
06:41:16 <anthony> ... it took a bit of explaining
06:41:35 <anthony> ... I've been working on my library for that
06:41:40 <anthony> ... and made edits to the spec
06:41:49 <anthony> ... I have a major change I want to make to it
06:42:13 <anthony> CM: Did you want to talk about it today?
06:42:15 <anthony> DS: That would be good
06:42:26 <anthony> CM: What was the general feel from that conference
06:42:32 <anthony> ... regarding the true type fonts?
06:42:36 <anthony> DS: There were mixed feelings
06:42:39 <heycam> s/the/linking to/
06:42:53 <anthony> ... many of them feel they want to link to them
06:43:36 <anthony> ... I do think there are few people there who were in favour of other types
06:44:12 <anthony> ... EOT
06:44:23 <anthony> ... I might type up a short report
06:44:30 <anthony> ... there were definitely interests
06:44:50 <anthony> ... on SVG Fonts from the perspective of complex glyphs
06:45:06 <anthony> CM: How about the print people, where they interested in following the SVG Print stuff?
06:45:25 <anthony> DS: People came up and asked me about it
06:45:41 <anthony> ... Jon Cruz from Inkscape presented on Colour Management
06:45:52 <anthony> ... I explained how we split out Colour Management and Pagination
06:46:00 <anthony> ... there was a lot of interest in Pagination 
06:46:10 <anthony> ... I think we really need to make progress on both these specs
06:46:24 <anthony> CM: Given that there is a fair few people that want to see this finished
06:46:31 <anthony> ... and that there is little work left to be done
06:46:35 <anthony> ... we should move on that
06:46:46 <anthony> DS: There were some people that were interested in multi-image
06:46:50 <anthony> ... and level of detail
06:47:14 <anthony> ... we should put something in a spec for multi-image and level-of-detail
06:47:24 <anthony> CM: We should make a list of things that are in that draft
06:47:37 <anthony> ... that are not in Tiny
06:47:47 <anthony> DS: I think that is about it, unless you guys have questions?
06:47:57 <anthony> CM: Sounds like it was worth going to
06:48:01 <anthony> DS: Definitely
06:48:21 <anthony> Topic: Param Spec
06:48:29 <anthony> DS: I uploaded a new spec
06:48:37 <anthony> ... new draft of the spec
06:48:57 <shepazu> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/modules/param/master/SVGParam.html
06:49:09 <anthony> DS: The more I thought about it
06:49:19 <anthony> ... the less I liked the <ref/> element
06:49:22 <anthony> ... I guess my question is
06:49:40 <anthony> ... What do we think about the name 'param'
06:49:45 <anthony> ... is it the right name?
06:49:53 <anthony> CM: I think 'param' sounds good enough
06:49:59 <anthony> ... and describes what it is going to reference
06:50:08 <anthony> ... If it was going to reference something different
06:50:13 <anthony> ... I think the name would be different
06:50:19 <anthony> DS: I think you're right
06:50:40 <anthony> ... It's probably best to keep the name as what they do
06:50:48 <anthony> ... I added a content value for text elements
06:51:01 <anthony> ... and it actually does insert content into the DOM
06:51:53 <anthony> ... One thing I want to fix is accessibility rules
06:52:01 <anthony> ... I want stuff to be put in the DOM
06:52:31 <anthony> ... I added a param element that was similar to the param element from HTML
06:52:53 <anthony> ... I talk about how it should be available on animateObject, Image and Use
06:53:00 <anthony> ... and can be used on Audio, Script and Video
06:53:06 <anthony> ... haven't defined what happens there yet
06:53:18 <anthony> ... I cleaned up the IDL def
06:53:32 <anthony> ... they're still not done completely
06:54:02 <anthony> ... As I was explaining params to designers
06:54:12 <anthony> ... I used CSS as an analogy
06:54:39 <anthony> ... I can still see an argument that this should be done with classes
06:54:42 <anthony> ... and not params
06:55:01 <anthony> CM: If in the end that most things can be defined in properties then maybe this param value
06:55:15 <anthony> ... should be value that you can use in CSS property values
06:55:56 <anthony> DS: What can this do that you couldn't do with CSS
06:56:05 <anthony> ... assuming some attributes where properties
06:56:20 <anthony> ... I mean CSS doesn't have access to somethings like query strings for example
06:56:35 <anthony> ... I could see it being used where a class is placed on an element
06:56:43 <anthony> CM: So this idea would be
06:56:48 <anthony> ... from the outer referencing element
06:57:07 <anthony> DS: I'm still thinking of implications of that
06:57:19 <anthony> CM: Pushing styles in instead of pulling param values in
06:57:29 <anthony> DS: There is another property we could define
06:57:32 <anthony> ... and that is parameters
06:57:45 <anthony> ... Currently object param elements and URL query strings
06:58:34 <anthony> ... Instead of having child-param elements you have a parameters attribute\
06:58:51 <shepazu> parameters="base:green;petal1:white;petal2:lime;heart:lime"
06:59:40 <anthony> AG: I can see the argument why you're considering CSS
07:00:05 <anthony> DS: You can make that apply to multiple elements at the same time
07:00:32 <anthony> ... maybe a GPS device could have access to the parameter values
07:00:46 <anthony> ... then CSS should also have a way to affect the parameters
07:01:00 <anthony> ... we don't want to be defining something if there is maybe a way to do it in CSS
07:01:21 <anthony> ... I'm still thinking through if this is the right way
07:01:56 <anthony> ... I think that getting the parameters could be covered by CSS. You could do some of the effects using CSS not all of them
07:01:59 <anthony> ... but some of them
07:02:09 <anthony> CM: But then on the other hand if we didn't do it for all of them
07:02:18 <anthony> ... there might still be away to reference it form the XML attribute
07:02:51 <anthony> ... I guess that one disadvantage of the parameters property/attribute is that you have them all as one list on the attribute
07:02:56 <anthony> ... it's a bit hard to change
07:04:12 <anthony> DS: The iFrame can't take elements as children instead iFrame content is treated as a text node
07:04:54 <anthony> ... I'm wondering if this would be useful as an '@' rule
07:05:19 <anthony> CM: Which way? I mean having things for an iFrame might not be suitable
07:05:26 <anthony> ... you know how you wanted to have the defaults there
07:05:45 <anthony> ... so maybe an '@' rule would be useful if you wanted to keep those default things
07:06:03 <anthony> DS: I fixed it up in my implementation
07:06:08 <anthony> ... I fixed up some corner cases
07:06:15 <anthony> ... so that it emulates the use element
07:06:34 <anthony> CM: I think it's useful to have this scripting alongside the spec development
07:06:43 <anthony> DS: It's very useful prototyping it
07:06:50 <anthony> ... because it raises questions
07:06:55 <anthony> ... then if I had just written a spec
07:07:06 <anthony> ... I'm working on the Primer
07:07:16 <anthony> ... another thing that's nice about prototyping
07:07:29 <anthony> ... is it gives you a way to explain the functionality
07:13:47 <anthony> Topic: Update on SVG 1.1 Second Edition
07:14:01 <anthony> CM: Last week I said I had it pretty much all building
07:14:07 <anthony> ... I forgot a chapter
07:14:12 <anthony> ... but now it really is all building
07:14:19 <anthony> ... I haven't got to diffing the spec yet
07:14:24 <anthony> ... I have made some updates
07:14:28 <anthony> ... that are worth mentioning
07:14:42 <heycam> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/escript.html
07:14:45 <anthony> ... I changed quite radically, what the ECMA script binding language looks like
07:14:55 <anthony> ... In 1.1 1st edition
07:15:04 <anthony> ... it's an auto generated thing
07:15:12 <anthony> ... because this is the way it had been written for other DOM specs
07:15:20 <anthony> ... it's not particularly useful
07:15:31 <anthony> ... because SVG doesn't use any square brackets to do any tricky things
07:15:52 <anthony> ... basically it's a lot of overhead for something simple which is what we need
07:15:58 <anthony> ... So I've changed it
07:16:03 <anthony> ... and I want to check if people think it's ok
07:16:16 <heycam> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/ecmascript-binding.html
07:16:16 <anthony> ED: The 1st Edition doesn't have much just a link right?
07:16:18 <anthony> CM: Yes
07:16:33 <anthony> ... I mean another issues with that appendix in the 1st edition
07:16:43 <anthony> ... is that it's pretty imprecise about objects it's talking about
07:16:54 <anthony> ... in the future we want to use Web IDLs
07:17:02 <anthony> ... for conformance requirements
07:17:11 <anthony> ... the requirements I've written
07:17:16 <anthony> ... is a very small subset
07:17:56 <anthony> ... it doesn't specify things in great detail
07:18:05 <anthony> ... it's more so loose requirements
07:18:17 <anthony> ED: That's ok
07:18:28 <anthony> ... are you saying we should completely remove the full list of methods
07:18:32 <anthony> ... and just have an IDL?
07:18:50 <anthony> CM: A couple of problems are it's very repetitive
07:19:02 <anthony> ... you don't have to list everything for every possible property
07:19:15 <anthony> ... I think we could do a way with the full list and just have the description
07:19:16 <Zakim> -shepazu
07:19:28 <anthony> ED: So seeing how the language binding is not normative
07:19:31 <anthony> ... in 1.1
07:19:38 <anthony> ... I don't see the point in keeping the additional list here
07:19:47 <anthony> ... that point about the appendix being normative or not
07:19:54 <anthony> ... I raised it on the mailing list
07:20:20 <anthony> ... it doesn't make sense to keep it informative
07:20:28 <anthony> ... which is to say I think it should be normative
07:20:35 <anthony> ... so at the very least
07:20:39 <ed> s/... that point/CM: that point/
07:20:41 <anthony> ... all the tests in the test suite that use script
07:20:56 <anthony> ... I think you can't say that those tests need to be passed
07:21:05 <anthony> ... in the conformance requirements part
07:21:41 <heycam> "The viewer must have complete support for an ECMAScript binding of the SVG Document Object Model."
07:22:07 <anthony> CM: I guess that doesn't mean a particular binding that's in the binding appendix
07:22:15 <anthony> ... if we don't require a particular binding in script
07:22:28 <anthony> ... then there is no normative thing that those test relies on
07:22:37 <anthony> ... to claim those tests need to be passed
07:22:41 <anthony> ... do you agree ED?
07:22:43 <anthony> ED: I guess
07:22:49 <anthony> ... might be a bit loose at the moment
07:22:55 <anthony> ... so I don't mind having the binding normative
07:23:01 <anthony> ... it seems to be normative already
07:23:07 <anthony> ... but we should make it explicit
07:23:15 <anthony> ... I think we should state for each appendix we have
07:23:21 <anthony> ... whether it is normative
07:23:25 <anthony> CM: I agree
07:23:33 <anthony> ... it would be good to make it clear
07:23:41 <anthony> ED: Just need to add a statement at the top of each
07:23:46 <anthony> AG: I agree
07:23:58 <anthony> CM: Given that the appendix is informative you don't mind dropping that big list?
07:24:04 <anthony> ED: If we make it normative
07:24:08 <anthony> ... the IDL is also normative
07:24:22 <anthony> ... having a statement saying you have to implement this IDL
07:24:29 <anthony> ... I don't see the point in repeating
07:24:39 <anthony> ... it's just another place where things can go wrong
07:24:52 <anthony> CM: If there are one or two things with special behaviour
07:24:55 <anthony> ... we are likely to miss it
07:25:03 <anthony> ... even if it is auto generated\
07:25:13 <anthony> ... so in terms of what I'm doing at the moment
07:25:18 <anthony> ... I'm getting the filters module building
07:25:21 <anthony> ... the tricky thing is
07:25:30 <anthony> ... there are no references to other specs
07:25:39 <anthony> ... I noticed in the build script
07:25:47 <anthony> ... that you put in <spec> elements
07:25:52 <anthony> ... so I want the script to import it
07:26:01 <anthony> ... with out an special work
07:26:27 <anthony> ED: So in the filters spec, I need to reference both parts in 1.2 Tiny and parts from 1.1 or perhaps what will be 1.2 Full
07:26:32 <anthony> ... there's no place to link to
07:26:37 <anthony> ... that's why I'm still linking to 1.1
07:26:41 <anthony> ... and I have special mark up
07:26:45 <anthony> ... to quickly switch links
07:26:54 <anthony> CM: So what 1.1 things did you need to link to?
07:26:57 <anthony> ED: DOM thinks
07:27:06 <anthony> s/thinks/things/
07:27:14 <anthony> ED: clipping, masking
07:27:29 <anthony> ... it might be possible to remove some of the dependencies
07:27:35 <anthony> ... or make them optional in some way
07:27:49 <anthony> CM: At the moment I think the definitions file that I have building
07:28:12 <anthony> ... that will mostly work for referencing the 1.1 1st edition
07:28:21 <anthony> ... for Tiny at the moment I'm writing up a definitions file
07:28:29 <anthony> ED: I guess the other modules we have in progress now
07:28:33 <anthony> ... could have the same problem
07:28:35 <anthony> CM: Yes
07:28:45 <anthony> ... need to be careful about elements defined in both
07:28:51 <anthony> ... I think it should work when I'm done
07:28:56 <anthony> ED: On thing I thought about
07:29:07 <anthony> ... was how many changes have you made to the filters chapter?
07:29:15 <anthony> CM: Dunno if I've made any changes
07:29:21 <anthony> ... when I get around to doing the diffs
07:29:23 <anthony> ... I'll find out
07:29:33 <anthony> ED: We will probably need to sync up to errata items
07:29:52 <anthony> CM: So will the extended filter primitives extend 1.1?
07:29:57 <anthony> ... or Tiny?
07:30:06 <anthony> ... I guess one of the differences is the DOM
07:30:15 <anthony> ED: That's one thing I hadn't got to yet
07:30:27 <anthony> CM: It's just extending the trait table?
07:30:37 <anthony> ... not much element specific DOM properties
07:30:46 <anthony> ED: Maybe one type that isn't in
07:31:04 <anthony> ... the rest of it is just basic types
07:31:14 <anthony> ... I will get to listing those properties an attributes
07:31:19 <anthony> ... for uDOM access as well
07:31:26 <anthony> CM: I suppose we will just say
07:31:32 <anthony> ... these IDL fragments that apply for 1.1
07:31:36 <anthony> ... also apply for 1.2
07:32:43 <anthony> Topic: Method for server push via Never-ended documents
07:32:49 <heycam> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009May/0033.html
07:33:03 <anthony> CM: Got a mail on mailing list asking about
07:33:27 <anthony> ... a feature for streaming data
07:33:43 <anthony> ... I think he wants to stream some extra document content/data
07:33:51 <anthony> ... and have it displayed in the document
07:34:07 <anthony> ... he draws the comparison to progressive rendering
07:34:17 <anthony> ... given we've got that and the discard element
07:34:29 <anthony> ... I think we can support what he wants to do
07:34:53 <anthony> ED: I think progressive-rendering should already cover this use case
07:35:01 <anthony> ... does it saying anything about some particular thing missing
07:35:08 <anthony> CM: It sounds like he wants this more for HTML
07:35:16 <anthony> ... but says this could also apply to SVG
07:35:26 <anthony> ... not sure if he realises this is already in SVG
07:35:38 <anthony> ... so maybe I'll point that out to him
07:35:52 <anthony> Topic: SVG Open 2009
07:36:28 <anthony> ED: We got a mail from David Daley asking us to maybe make some proposals for SVG Open panel sessions 
07:36:47 <anthony> ... previously we've had implementers panel and Working Group panel
07:37:14 <anthony> ... I still think it would be still good to have the Working Group panel
07:37:19 <anthony> ... I think we should propose that
07:37:24 <anthony> ... as for implementers
07:37:26 <anthony> ... I don't know
07:37:39 <anthony> ... people seem to be interested in hearing what implementers are doing currently
07:37:48 <anthony> ... I'm not sure if it's worth having a joint panel
07:37:58 <anthony> ... or if it's worth having them separate
07:38:00 <anthony> CM: Not sure
07:38:04 <anthony> ... it'd be worth finding out
07:38:09 <anthony> ... who's not on the WG
07:38:19 <anthony> ... that would want to be on the implementers panel
07:38:31 <anthony> ED: I guess if we want to go forward with that
07:38:34 <shepazu> inkscape isn't on the WG, nor is Google
07:38:41 <anthony> ... I could write up a proposal
07:38:52 <shepazu> but we could have a joint panel anyway
07:39:19 <anthony> ED: There should be previous proposals from previous yers
07:39:24 <anthony> s/yers/years/
07:39:30 <anthony> ED: So it shouldn't be too hard
07:39:33 <anthony> ... to draft something up
07:39:44 <anthony> CM: Anyone doing papers?
07:39:49 <anthony> ED: I'll probably submit one
07:40:21 <shepazu> I plan on doing an accessibility presentation
07:41:10 <anthony> AG: I'll probably do one
07:41:51 <anthony> ACTION: Erik to Write the proposal for the Working Group panel
07:41:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2555 - Write the proposal for the Working Group panel [on Erik Dahlström - due 2009-05-18].
07:42:20 <anthony> ACTION: Cameron to Write a proposal for the Implementers panel
07:42:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2556 - Write a proposal for the Implementers panel [on Cameron McCormack - due 2009-05-18].
07:44:41 <ed> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#pattern_overflow
07:44:47 <anthony> Topic: Errata review
07:45:08 <anthony> ED: This is adding a sentence at the end there
07:45:24 <anthony> ... "if the 'overflow' property is set to visible the rendering behaviour for the pattern is undefined."
07:45:30 <anthony> ... the action is still open
07:45:37 <anthony> ... because I haven't raised the issue
07:45:50 <anthony> ... and I still need to respond to Dr. Hoffmann
07:46:38 <anthony> CM: May want to change the spelling of "behaviour" to "behavior"
07:46:48 <anthony> AG: We should do a run through of the entire document
07:46:54 <anthony> ... to check for cases like that
07:47:01 <anthony> CM: Is this a category 3?
07:47:06 <anthony> ... I think it could be 2
07:47:31 <anthony> ... it doesn't change non conforming implementations to be conforming and vice-versa 
07:47:48 <anthony> ED: It does change non conforming implementations to be conforming
07:47:54 <anthony> ... if you don't do overflow
07:48:19 <anthony> CM: I guess so if you don't do the overflow
07:48:30 <anthony> ED: I'm probably more comfortable as keeping it category 3
07:48:42 <anthony> ... any objections to moving to proposed?
07:48:47 <anthony> All: None
07:49:33 <anthony> RESOLUTION: We will move the "Rendering of patterns with overflow="visible" is undefined" errata item from Draft to Proposed status
07:49:44 <anthony> ACTION: Eric to Move the "Rendering of patterns with overflow="visible" is undefined" errata from Draft to Proposed status
07:49:44 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Eric
07:50:13 <anthony> ACTION: Erik to Move the "Rendering of patterns with overflow="visible" is undefined" errata from Draft to Proposed status
07:50:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2557 - Move the "Rendering of patterns with overflow="visible" is undefined" errata from Draft to Proposed status [on Erik Dahlström - due 2009-05-18].
07:50:45 <anthony> CM: In the errata file there are still a few that need work on them
07:50:55 <anthony> ... I don't think that is going to hold up the publication of the errata document
07:52:34 <anthony> ... the things I'm worried about is changes that get made that aren't published
07:53:03 <anthony> ... I don't mind keeping the things that are currently in the document in there
07:53:16 <anthony> ... and if they don't get done for 2nd edition
07:53:29 <anthony> ... we might want to keep them around for the next edition
07:53:47 <anthony> ED: Just looking at the process document
07:54:38 <anthony> ... I guess we could see the edited recommendation as an errata
07:54:46 <anthony> ... but we definitely have to announce it
07:54:54 <anthony> ... it would be good to give people time to comment on it
07:55:00 <anthony> ... before we publish the final doc
07:55:15 <anthony> CM: Maybe when we publish the errata we can announce the other changes we've made
07:55:24 <anthony> ED: It's a bit time consume to edit it two places
07:55:57 <Zakim> -ed
07:55:59 <Zakim> -anthony
07:55:59 <Zakim> -heycam
07:55:59 <Zakim> GA_SVGWG()2:30AM has ended
07:56:01 <Zakim> Attendees were ed, shepazu, heycam, anthony
07:59:08 <eseidel> eseidel has joined #svg
08:04:11 <anthony> RRSAgent, make minutes
08:04:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/11-svg-minutes.html anthony
08:34:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #svg
08:36:49 <heycam> heycam has joined #svg
10:26:04 <ed_work> ed_work has joined #svg
12:04:02 <eseidel> eseidel has joined #svg