14:28:49 RRSAgent has joined #svg 14:28:49 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc 14:28:51 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:28:51 Zakim has joined #svg 14:28:53 Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG 14:28:53 ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()10:30AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 14:28:54 Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference 14:28:54 Date: 12 April 2010 14:29:30 GA_SVGWG()10:30AM has now started 14:29:31 +Shepazu 14:29:56 +[IPcaller] 14:30:04 Zakim, [IP is me 14:30:04 +ed; got it 14:31:15 +ChrisL 14:31:45 +[IPcaller] 14:32:18 Zakim, [IP is me 14:32:18 +anthony; got it 14:32:32 hi 14:42:22 http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2010/index.php?p=en/location 14:44:15 http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Rue+du+Fort+35+1060+Brussels+Belgium&sll=50.828325,4.34221&sspn=0.006736,0.01929&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Fortstraat+35,+Sint-Gillis+1060+Saint-Gilles,+Brussels-Capital+Region,+Belgium&ll=50.864478,4.457016&spn=0.215389,0.617294&z=11 14:45:24 http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=0,0,1314856789320127029&fb=1&hq=microsoft&hnear=brussels&daddr=Culliganlaan+1,+1831+Machelen,+Belgium&geocode=16487724983740769806,50.884409,4.449002&ei=8zHDS_2FLI_8_Aanif3VBg&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=directions-to&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQngIwAA 14:49:29 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Test_Suite_1.1F2 14:49:36 topic: testsuite 14:50:21 +??P3 14:50:42 jwatt has joined #svg 14:51:04 Zakim, who's here? 14:51:04 On the phone I see Shepazu, ed, ChrisL, anthony, ??P3 14:51:05 On IRC I see jwatt, Zakim, RRSAgent, ed, ChrisL, shepazu, anthony, ed_work, trackbot 14:51:07 +[Microsoft] 14:51:24 Zakim, P3 is me 14:51:24 sorry, jwatt, I do not recognize a party named 'P3' 14:51:30 Zakim, ??P3 is me 14:51:30 +jwatt; got it 14:51:51 patrickd has joined #svg 14:51:58 ED: so, approve the tests labeled as "reviewed by CL, approve?" 14:52:13 ALL: yes, go ahead 14:52:34 http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=0,0,1314856789320127029&fb=1&hq=microsoft&hnear=brussels&daddr=Culliganlaan+1,+1831+Machelen,+Belgium&geocode=16487724983740769806,50.884409,4.449002&ei=8zHDS_2FLI_8_Aanif3VBg&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=directions-to&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQngIwAA 14:53:19 ACTION: ed to mark the "reviewed by CL, approve?" tests as approved, and generate updated reference images 14:53:19 Created ACTION-2756 - Mark the "reviewed by CL, approve?" tests as approved, and generate updated reference images [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-04-19]. 14:53:31 template fixed 14:53:57 scribe: anthony 14:54:06 ScribeNick: anthony 14:54:29 shepazu_ has joined #svg 14:54:46 ED: I think the grammar for the elliptical has been fixed 14:54:52 paths-data-20-f.svg 14:54:52 ... I added a test for it 14:54:58 ... would like some one to view the test 14:55:23 DS: Jeff Schiller had more to say about the syntax on the mailing list 14:55:32 ED: My update was after his email 14:55:42 ... it covers white space after the first and second flags 14:56:12 DS: We could mention at least in the context of SVG 2.0 14:56:30 ... a lacuna value for any given coordinate that is out of range 14:56:35 ... can say it is assumed to be zero 14:56:43 ED: I'm not sure really 14:56:50 ... if you want to go with 1 or 0 then you have a bisa 14:56:58 s/bisa/bias/ 14:57:16 DS: It's only cases where the arc flags are messed up 14:57:28 ... what do you do with it? 14:57:39 ED: We just check if its 1 or 0 that's all 14:57:44 ... if it's say 2 14:57:49 ... we just say it's invalid 14:57:59 ... you can't really parse it as anything else 14:58:04 DS: We should have it do something 14:58:37 ... does the spec say what to do if the grammar isn't followed? 14:59:02 ED: It says what to do if the segment is not valid 14:59:09 ... you render up to the valid point 14:59:26 ... that's what is mentioned in 1.1 anyway 14:59:42 ... render up to the last valid segement 14:59:49 ... then continue with the rest of the document 14:59:55 ... that's what the tests I wrote do 15:00:07 ... and the tests from Microsoft 15:00:36 PD: I'm pretty sure that the spec says for this case 15:00:42 ... exactly what Erik was saying 15:00:52 DS: I want to make sure this is captured in SVG 2.0 15:01:19 ... I'll start an issue 15:01:27 ... to make sure this is covered 15:01:57 ED: Any volunteers to review the test? 15:02:04 PD: We can review it 15:02:53 ACTION: Patrick to Review paths-data-20-f.svg 15:02:53 Created ACTION-2757 - Review paths-data-20-f.svg [on Patrick Dengler - due 2010-04-19]. 15:03:22 Topic: F2F Meeting 15:03:33 ED: Do we have a sign up form? 15:03:39 CL: No, I'll do that today 15:03:44 i will make one today 15:04:27 trackbot, pointer? 15:04:27 Sorry, shepazu_, I don't understand 'trackbot, pointer?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 15:04:59 Topic: FX Force 15:05:14 ED: We should schedule a telcon time 15:05:19 ... to review some of the issues 15:05:26 DS: We should ask them 15:05:41 ED: I can send an email to ask them to do it Thursday next week 15:06:14 PD: I'm not getting any information on the discussion 15:06:22 DS: Probably not on the mailing list 15:06:32 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/ 15:06:33 ... I'll drop you a link 15:07:07 DS: Just thinking about the dynamics about how this would play out 15:07:22 ... we have come to a conclusion about image fit 15:07:59 ... and then we go to the CSS WG and they get frustrated because we've had these private discussions 15:08:07 ... we shouldn't talk about it in the groups 15:08:16 ... and do it on the FX list 15:08:46 ACTION: Erik to Suggest a new telcon time for the FX Task Force group 15:08:46 Created ACTION-2758 - Suggest a new telcon time for the FX Task Force group [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-04-19]. 15:08:55 RRSAgent, pointer? 15:08:55 See http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-08-55 15:10:34 Topic: Wording on radial gradient focal points 15:10:36 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010AprJun/0016.html 15:10:49 AG: I've reviewed the test 15:10:58 ... and the test looks fine to me 15:11:23 ED: Can we go ahead and approve the test? 15:11:37 ALL: Ok 15:13:08 AG: I suggested some extra wording 15:13:21 ... to clarify the spec 15:13:30 ED: It is a bit wordy 15:13:51 ... but it's sort of saying the same thing else where in xlink:href I think 15:14:09 ... definitely something that could be interpreted in two different ways 15:14:59 ... what does everything else thing of the additional wording? 15:15:08 CL: I think it would be good to put it in 1.1 SE 15:15:12 ED: It's more clear to me 15:15:25 ... where should it go? In 'fx' or in 'fy' as well 15:16:27 AG: So, I had written the wording to go into the 'fx' attribute 15:16:33 ... can be referenced by 'fy' 15:17:12 ACTION: Anthony to Add the the proposed wording for 'fx' clarification to SVG 1.1 2nd Edition 15:17:12 Created ACTION-2759 - Add the the proposed wording for 'fx' clarification to SVG 1.1 2nd Edition [on Anthony Grasso - due 2010-04-19]. 15:17:43 http://www.microsoft.com/ebc/brussels.mspx 15:18:00 Topic: F2F Meeting 15:18:12 PD: There's a link to the location 15:18:21 ED: We have a registration page 15:18:23 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/19480/SVGBrussels/ 15:18:37 CL: Doug you asked if we could have a joint meeting with LGM 15:19:04 DS: The last I heard from them that they understood that we wanted have a meeting with them 15:19:08 ... during the conference 15:19:21 ... what we had intended was people from LGM to participate in the F2F 15:19:31 CL: Seems like we need to close a loop on that 15:19:36 ... I'd be happy either way 15:19:49 ... or for a panel and a meeting to occur 15:20:04 DS: I was going to say we could explain how the process works 15:20:17 ... and see if we can get people participating from the community 15:20:31 ... or at least get an understanding of why things take time 15:20:36 ... but I'll follow through with them 15:20:49 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVGF2F_2010_LGM 15:21:16 so we can add hotel etc onto that 15:22:09 Topic: SVG 1.1 SE Push 15:22:21 CL: We have an implementation report 15:22:25 ... which is largely complete 15:22:26 http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/implementation-report.html 15:22:37 ... I've been maintaining that 15:22:49 ... updating every time new versions of implementations come out 15:22:56 ... we only want one pass per test 15:22:57 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Test_Suite_1.1F2 15:23:13 ... Erik can you think of specific tests we need to add to the report? 15:23:19 ED: There are some 15:23:37 ... path-data-20-f.svg 15:23:44 CL: It's not on the wiki page 15:23:48 ... need to add it to both of them 15:23:59 ED: Do we have reviews of the tests that are on the first page? 15:24:01 CL: Yes 15:24:06 ... I think they are all reviewed 15:24:14 ... and they are all approved as well 15:24:23 ED: Just checking that now 15:24:32 http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/svgdom-over-01-f.svg 15:24:40 ... so one of the tests I made for the spec is unreviewed 15:25:02 ... and the funny thing with that one is it conflicts with the one of the submitted Microsoft tests 15:25:13 CL: In that case Patrick should review it 15:25:30 struct-svg-01-f.svg 15:25:41 CL: That needs to go into to the test report as well 15:25:50 svgdom-over-01-f.svg 15:25:55 ... and the SVG DOM test needs to go to the test report as well 15:26:35 ACTION: Patrick to Review the svgdom-over-01-f.svg and struct-svg-01-f.svg tests and resolve any of the conflicts 15:26:35 Created ACTION-2760 - Review the svgdom-over-01-f.svg and struct-svg-01-f.svg tests and resolve any of the conflicts [on Patrick Dengler - due 2010-04-19]. 15:26:46 CL: any passes for the tests we are adding? 15:26:51 ED: Batik pass the first one 15:27:00 ... Webkit and Inkscape fail 15:27:09 ... Firefox pass and Opera passes 15:27:13 ... the second one 15:27:19 ... Opera 10.50 passes that one 15:27:26 ... and partials on everyone else 15:27:56 ... so who is going to update the implementation report? 15:28:01 CL: I'll do that anyway 15:28:06 ... and update the results 15:28:20 DS: Are you testing Webkit Safari? 15:28:39 CL: No a nightly build 15:28:47 DS: Should we test Chrome as well? 15:29:02 CL: We should. In this case we are just after passes 15:29:18 ... the Webkit rep on the CSS WG said not to bother running Safari 15:29:26 ... but just to test it on Webkit 15:29:40 DS: I could test it on Safari and on Chrome 15:30:17 ACTION: Chris to Add svgdom-over-01-f.svg and struct-svg-01-f.svg to the implementation report 15:30:17 Created ACTION-2761 - Add svgdom-over-01-f.svg and struct-svg-01-f.svg to the implementation report [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-04-19]. 15:30:59 ED: Do we need to do anything else? 15:31:09 ... I think we need to get the Test Suite fulling working 15:31:54 CL: Apart from the test suite I think the spec needs to be up to date 15:32:04 ED: There are a few editing actions 15:32:19 PD: I still don't have my editing credentials 15:32:31 DS: I'll look into that today 15:33:45 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Brussels%2C_Belgium_F2F 15:34:43 http://www.microsoft.com/ebc/brussels.mspx 15:36:33 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/products/1 15:36:40 ED: Would it be helpful to gather together all the editing actions 15:36:43 ... and send out emails 15:37:01 CL: Some of the actions can only be done after publication 15:37:20 ... JWatt there's actions on ZoomEvent and an action on Text 15:37:26 ... to propose some wording 15:38:25 ... we are very close 15:38:32 ... to completing 15:38:41 ... we have 8 open issues 15:39:00 ... we either fix them or push them to another spec 15:39:25 close ISSUE-2017 15:39:25 ISSUE-2017 Find sane values for getSubStringLength and selectSubString closed 15:39:26 ED: Issue 2017 we can close because we were in agreement 15:39:29 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2017 15:40:23 issue-2259? 15:40:23 ISSUE-2259 -- Inconsistent use of symbol -- RAISED 15:40:23 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2259 15:40:52 ISSUE-2299? 15:40:52 ISSUE-2299 -- Text on a path layout rules unclear wrt startpoint-on-the-path and text-anchor -- RAISED 15:40:52 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2299 15:41:08 ED: We can probably push that to SVG 2.0 15:41:22 ... it's not going to be small change if we start trying to tweak the wording there 15:41:29 once i had added tests or determined we don't need tests then i can close action-2697 and thus issue-2259 15:41:31 ... I'll update that to be SVG 2.0 then 15:41:40 ISSUE-2305 15:41:42 ISSUE-2305? 15:41:42 ISSUE-2305 -- Line caps drawing on zero length lines -- RAISED 15:41:42 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2305 15:41:49 CL: We have a test for that 15:41:58 http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/painting-stroke-10-t.svg 15:42:39 ED: I remember seeing one more test with the zero length lines 15:42:57 agenda+ Canvas 15:43:46 ED: Maybe if someone can take an action to write the test 15:43:52 ... not sure if it's blocking publication 15:43:57 ... there was a test submitted 15:44:09 ... by the guy that originally reported the issue 15:44:55 CL: I can do that 15:44:57 ... that's fine 15:45:11 ED: There is one point in that test case is unclear 15:45:44 ... when the length matches the end of the line 15:45:54 ... so that's the reason why one of the lines at the end of the test case 15:46:09 ... was there in some and not there in others 15:46:16 ... or break it up into several tests 15:46:38 agenda+ makers 15:46:51 ACTION: Chris to Write a test for ISSUE-2305 15:46:51 Created ACTION-2762 - Write a test for ISSUE-2305 [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-04-19]. 15:47:30 ISSUE-2309? 15:47:30 ISSUE-2309 -- Investigate impact of changing SVG 1.1 second edition to reference CSS2.1 -- RAISED 15:47:30 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2309 15:47:59 ED: I think we've said before it would be a too bigger change to make 15:48:10 ... there have been some changes between 2.0 and 2.1 15:48:16 s/bigger/big of a/ 15:48:31 ... such as clip and web fonts being dropped 15:49:01 ... so if want to really reference 2.1 we really have to investigate that 15:49:29 CL: We can't really reference 2.1 because it's not going to be finished until the end of the year 15:49:52 ... there are a few things we need to reference 2.0 because they are not in 2.1 15:50:03 ... the specificity of style attribute changed 15:50:39 ... we don't want SVG 1.1 SE waiting fro CSS 2.1 to be done 15:50:46 ED: We seem to know what to put in the spec 15:51:27 ACTION: Chris to Add wording to the specification to account for the differences between CSS 2.0 and 2.1 15:51:27 Created ACTION-2763 - Add wording to the specification to account for the differences between CSS 2.0 and 2.1 [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-04-19]. 15:51:57 Topic: Markers 15:52:11 PD: Should a marker receive an event? 15:52:28 PD: A connecting line would get an event 15:52:54 DS: If you click on any part of a shape including a marker the event is on the end element which the marker is applied 15:52:59 PD: Styling 15:53:31 ... the spec says it should style against the origination rather than the instantiation 15:53:44 CL: In general we have the same styling as CSS 15:53:57 ... there is one place we tried to do that differently 15:54:07 ... which was in and 15:55:40 DS: I think what should have been done with markers 15:56:09 ... is basically what was done with 15:56:14 ... and we can't change it now 15:56:34 ... we could add a set of properties that deals with markers 15:56:43 CL: We can already do that with vector effects 15:57:48 ... I think we should leave markers for SVG 1.1 SE as is 15:57:58 ... then for 2.0 we should make them more like 15:58:19 also, for SVG 2.0 I want to drop markers and add a polymarker element 15:59:15 CL: Markers would effectively be deprecated 15:59:46 DS: Could you change it without causing backwards compatibility problems 16:00:05 CL: I'd rather replace it with different functionality 16:00:18 PD: Would it fix styling problem? 16:00:24 DS: Yes 16:01:06 Topic: Canvas 16:01:25 s/Canvas/Canvas and processing meeting/ 16:01:46 DS: Processing is a high level language that was ported to Java 16:01:56 patrickd: (I have to exit; hard stop) 16:02:01 -[Microsoft] 16:07:33 -ChrisL 16:07:34 -jwatt 16:07:35 -ed 16:07:37 -anthony 16:07:44 -Shepazu 16:07:45 GA_SVGWG()10:30AM has ended 16:07:46 Attendees were Shepazu, [IPcaller], ed, ChrisL, anthony, [Microsoft], jwatt 16:09:03 trackbot, end telcon 16:09:03 Zakim, list attendees 16:09:03 sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is 16:09:04 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:09:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-minutes.html trackbot 16:09:05 RRSAgent, bye 16:09:05 I see 8 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-actions.rdf : 16:09:05 ACTION: ed to mark the "reviewed by CL, approve?" tests as approved, and generate updated reference images [1] 16:09:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T14-53-19 16:09:05 ACTION: Patrick to Review paths-data-20-f.svg [2] 16:09:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-02-53 16:09:05 ACTION: Erik to Suggest a new telcon time for the FX Task Force group [3] 16:09:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-08-46 16:09:05 ACTION: Anthony to Add the the proposed wording for 'fx' clarification to SVG 1.1 2nd Edition [4] 16:09:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-17-12 16:09:05 ACTION: Patrick to Review the svgdom-over-01-f.svg and struct-svg-01-f.svg tests and resolve any of the conflicts [5] 16:09:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-26-35 16:09:05 ACTION: Chris to Add svgdom-over-01-f.svg and struct-svg-01-f.svg to the implementation report [6] 16:09:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-30-17 16:09:05 ACTION: Chris to Write a test for ISSUE-2305 [7] 16:09:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-46-51 16:09:05 ACTION: Chris to Add wording to the specification to account for the differences between CSS 2.0 and 2.1 [8] 16:09:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-51-27