IRC log of svg on 2009-05-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

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