IRC log of svg on 2009-11-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:05:53 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #svg
20:05:53 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:05:55 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:05:55 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #svg
20:05:57 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
20:05:57 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see GA_SVGWG()3:00PM already started
20:05:58 [trackbot]
Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
20:05:58 [trackbot]
Date: 12 November 2009
20:06:02 [Zakim]
20:06:02 [Zakim]
20:06:02 [Zakim]
20:10:02 [jwatt]
Zakim, who is here?
20:10:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IPcaller], Shepazu
20:10:03 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, jwatt, trackbot, anthony, shepazu, karl, ed_work, eseidelDesk
20:10:17 [jwatt]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
20:10:17 [Zakim]
+jwatt; got it
20:11:10 [Zakim]
20:11:26 [anthony]
zakim, [IP is me
20:11:26 [Zakim]
+anthony; got it
20:18:44 [jwatt]
scribe: jwatt
20:18:55 [jwatt]
scribenick: jwatt
20:20:26 [shepazu]
Topic: F2F dates
20:21:49 [jwatt]
AG: spoke erik - not available 18-22 Feb
20:22:13 [jwatt]
... Cam not back until Q2 earliest
20:22:32 [jwatt]
... jwatt not available in Feb
20:22:42 [jwatt]
... or Jan
20:23:12 [jwatt]
... so I'm wondering if we should do the F2F early March
20:23:30 [jwatt]
... first week
20:26:49 [jwatt]
DS: I was thinking of going to Japan in Jan, and hoping to make it a single trip going back via AUS
20:29:57 [jwatt]
[discussion about times]
20:30:14 [jwatt]
AG: how about 10th - 14th Feb?
20:31:21 [jwatt]
[more discussion]
20:31:30 [jwatt]
JW: okay, that could hopefully work for me
20:31:42 [jwatt]
AG: I'll talk to Ed about those dates
20:32:41 [shepazu]
Topic: SVG DOM
20:32:50 [shepazu]
20:33:59 [shepazu]
s/SVG DOM/Microsoft
20:39:11 [shepazu]
if MS were to implement SVG, how much of the DOM would be necessary for broad interoperability?
20:40:08 [shepazu]
as far as implementations, the most complete is probably Batik... then ASV (which is dwindling)... then the modern browsers (Opera, FF, Safari)...
20:40:36 [shepazu]
then there's the mobile UAs, but they use SVGT1.2's microdom...
20:41:24 [shepazu]
there's also compatibility with existing content to look at... it would be good to know how much of the corner-cases of the DOM are used in content
20:42:29 [shepazu]
note that Opera, FF, and WebKit implement different subsets of the DOM
20:47:52 [jwatt]
DS: there's a lot of good stuff in the SVG DOM, including unimplemented stuff, and there's a lot of stuff that was possibly not well thought out
20:48:37 [jwatt]
... I think we're at a unique point where there's not a lot of content affected by DOM changes
20:49:19 [jwatt]
... if we had a bunch of implementers that wanted to reconsider the DOM, we should maybe do that
20:49:34 [jwatt]
... 1.2 Tiny is a complete departure from 1.1 Full anyway
20:50:43 [jwatt]
... it would be a hard sell to some people, but if all the browser vendors wanted to do it, I'd we willing to look at it
20:51:02 [jwatt]
AG: I think it would be good to look at provided we keep backwards compatibility in mind
20:52:13 [jwatt]
DS: backwards compatibility could mean backwards compatibility with content OR implementations
20:52:48 [jwatt]
... there's three different types of content to deal with
20:52:57 [jwatt]
... 1) static content - not relevant here
20:53:16 [jwatt]
... 2) content that uses basic DOM Level 1/2/3 stuff
20:53:33 [jwatt]
... 3) content that uses particular things in the SVG DOM
20:55:13 [jwatt]
... we're only at partial risk in 2, depending on how much we throw away or keep
20:55:30 [jwatt]
... 3 is where our main risk is
20:56:02 [jwatt]
... the importance I'd give is first content, then implementations, then specifications
20:57:21 [anthony]
AG: With backwards compatibility of implementations, we would only need to look at where implementations overlap
20:58:20 [jwatt]
JW: I'm mainly worried about implementation complexity and performance
20:58:26 [anthony]
scribe: anthony
20:58:47 [anthony]
JW: The SVG DOM that are really negative for both
20:59:02 [anthony]
... especially the complex multiple levels of objects
20:59:06 [anthony]
... and object properties
20:59:10 [anthony]
... for certain attributes
21:00:08 [anthony]
... means you end up crossing the boundary between script and multiple implementations several times
21:00:17 [anthony]
... just to set multiple properties
21:00:37 [anthony]
... and these object heavy interfaces
21:00:43 [anthony]
... also add to implementation complexity
21:01:08 [anthony]
... if you are to avoid excessive memory use
21:01:58 [anthony]
... a lot of the time when I'm implementing DOM I sometimes wish we could start over and redesign it
21:02:03 [anthony]
... given the knowledge we have now
21:02:14 [anthony]
... but I've never felt that it was really possible
21:02:23 [anthony]
DS: One thing I've been talking about with people recently
21:02:29 [anthony]
... is a DOM summit
21:02:33 [anthony]
... or workshop
21:02:48 [anthony]
... where we get together for 2 - 3 days with authors and developers
21:03:31 [anthony]
... people who are doing implementations and also people who experience with the SVG DOM making content with the SVG DOM
21:03:54 [anthony]
... and people who have experience with the Flex development and seeing if we can make a best of breed interface
21:04:59 [anthony]
... and API developers
21:05:33 [anthony]
... I've seen people who said they liked what the SVG WG came up with recently
21:06:11 [anthony]
... there are sort of general DOM optimisations
21:06:22 [anthony]
... then there is stuff that is useful for SVG and Graphics
21:06:31 [anthony]
... unified API for SVG and Canvas
21:06:46 [anthony]
... TC39 should be along for the summit as well
21:07:12 [anthony]
... I'd like to take a look at expanding the maths library so it deals with points and vectors
21:07:16 [anthony]
... and matrices
21:07:53 [anthony]
JW: Math global?
21:07:55 [anthony]
DS: Yes
21:08:05 [anthony]
... I think TC39 does the Math global
21:08:08 [anthony]
JW: Yes it will be
21:09:11 [anthony]
... I'm kind of worried about getting so many people in the one room
21:09:17 [anthony]
... as your starting point
21:09:27 [anthony]
AG: I agree
21:10:03 [anthony]
JW: TC39 would not have any dependencies on SVG
21:10:14 [anthony]
... and I don't think they'd like that
21:10:33 [anthony]
... they would have to have dependencies on SVG
21:11:08 [anthony]
DS: We could put the functions in the right places or where they belong
21:11:21 [anthony]
JW: Java script library is the right place for that
21:12:59 [jwatt]
s/the/probably the/
21:13:31 [anthony]
DS: Scrip libraries rarely do that one thing they are suppose to do. They always end up doing a whole bunch of other things
21:13:42 [anthony]
... and you end up having to download the whole library
21:13:55 [anthony]
... I think they are overused as a tactic for expanding the web
21:14:29 [anthony]
JW: I agree at some point we want to take a script library and standardise the features
21:14:52 [anthony]
... once it's in the standard it becomes concrete
21:15:12 [anthony]
DS: I understand your point JWatt, at one point is it appropriate to standardise
21:15:30 [anthony]
s/one point/what point/
21:17:11 [anthony]
AG: With the summit, you'd want to go in there with use case and requirements
21:17:28 [anthony]
JW: I guess the main point here is should we be working on a new DOM
21:17:35 [anthony]
... I'm not sure how many people this will effect
21:17:40 [anthony]
... and how much content will be lost
21:17:48 [anthony]
... if people throw away their old implementations
21:18:11 [anthony]
JW: Let's not pretend that the browsers have as complete implementation as Adobe did
21:18:40 [jwatt]
21:18:58 [anthony]
JW: I think Mozilla's implementation in certain places is more complete than Adobe's ever was
21:19:39 [anthony]
DS: If we are worried about breaking compatibility with past content
21:19:43 [anthony]
... then that's already been done
21:20:05 [anthony]
... most of the content that was made back in the old days is not compatible with the implementations of today
21:20:25 [anthony]
JW: I agree all the stuff that was written in the Adobe is pretty much broken
21:20:35 [anthony]
... I'm worried that people made content we broke it
21:20:43 [anthony]
... then people have made new content
21:20:51 [anthony]
... then we break it again
21:22:12 [anthony]
... maybe that the content is small enough that for the sake of the benefits of the future out weigh the cost for breaking things again
21:22:18 [jwatt]
s/Adobe/Adobe days/
21:22:24 [anthony]
... but still going to be a painful process
21:23:25 [anthony]
JW: I think the thing that might sway me to take the root of breaking backwards compatibility
21:23:39 [anthony]
... with the emergence of Web IDL has allowed us to make much better interfaces
21:23:51 [jwatt]
s/with the/is the/
21:24:04 [jwatt]
s/has allowed/which allows/
21:24:57 [anthony]
JW: Have a whole bunch of bulky stuff and it'd be nice to throw it away
21:25:26 [anthony]
... we'd have to publicize this
21:25:29 [anthony]
... and get feedback
21:25:50 [anthony]
DS: I think MAMA is a good way to gauge what is out there
21:26:07 [jwatt]
s/feedback/feedback\/see how much we get flamed/
21:26:07 [anthony]
... and having a good test suite would help
21:26:28 [anthony]
JW: I think what you're talking about what is used in the wild
21:26:41 [anthony]
.... is useful, but what I was talking about was making a list
21:26:53 [anthony]
... of things we might consider removing from the SVG DOM
21:27:16 [anthony]
... and saying "hey we're not thinking about starting over, we are thinking of throwing some things away"
21:27:23 [anthony]
... potential for less confusion
21:27:32 [anthony]
DS: Obviously we'd have to get pretty concrete
21:27:38 [anthony]
... what's the next step?
21:27:44 [jwatt]
s/starting over/throwing everything in the SVG DOM away/
21:28:09 [jwatt]
s/some things away/away X, Y and Z/
21:28:42 [anthony]
DS: Maybe we should start on a specification
21:28:54 [anthony]
... nothing like a specification to get people talking
21:29:07 [anthony]
... we need to finish SVG Full 1.1 2nd Edition
21:29:10 [anthony]
... and start SVG 2.0
21:29:15 [anthony]
... and start with the DOM
21:30:08 [anthony]
... so next step is what?
21:30:19 [anthony]
JW: Working on the specification is one thing
21:30:44 [anthony]
... should have a document somewhere saying we are thinking of doing this
21:31:38 [anthony]
AG: How is that different from the current page?
21:31:46 [anthony]
DS: Current page has future ideas
21:31:59 [anthony]
AG: We should have a parent page
21:34:57 [anthony]
DS: If I felt that everyone was along for the ride
21:35:11 [anthony]
... then I'd say let's go with SVG 2.0 and not worry about the past
21:35:30 [anthony]
JW: Really I'd love to see the MAMA stuff and get the data
21:35:36 [anthony]
... and I don't want to commit to breaking stutt
21:35:42 [anthony]
21:36:03 [anthony]
DS: That would be what we need is feedback from the community
21:36:15 [anthony]
... we are fortunate that most of the content is static
21:37:58 [Zakim]
21:38:00 [Zakim]
21:38:08 [Zakim]
21:38:10 [Zakim]
GA_SVGWG()3:00PM has ended
21:38:12 [Zakim]
Attendees were Shepazu, jwatt, [IPcaller], anthony
21:38:20 [anthony]
Zakim, bye
21:38:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #svg
21:38:28 [anthony]
RRSAgent, make minutes
21:38:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate anthony