IRC log of svg on 2010-07-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:02:21 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #svg
20:02:21 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:02:23 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:02:23 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #svg
20:02:25 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
20:02:25 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see GA_SVGWG()4:00PM already started
20:02:26 [trackbot]
Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
20:02:26 [trackbot]
Date: 06 July 2010
20:03:07 [Zakim]
20:03:31 [Zakim]
20:03:34 [ed]
Zakim, [IP is me
20:03:34 [Zakim]
sorry, ed, I do not recognize a party named '[IP'
20:03:40 [ed]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
20:03:40 [Zakim]
+ed; got it
20:04:05 [anthony_w]
Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
20:04:05 [Zakim]
+anthony_w; got it
20:04:09 [Zakim]
20:04:26 [ChrisL]
zakim, +??P6 is me
20:04:26 [Zakim]
sorry, ChrisL, I do not recognize a party named '+??P6'
20:04:40 [ChrisL]
zakim, ??P6 is me
20:04:40 [Zakim]
+ChrisL; got it
20:04:48 [ChrisL]
zakim, who is here?
20:04:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +39.537.7.aaaa, ed, anthony_w, ChrisL
20:04:50 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, ChrisL, Tav, ed, dmiles_afk, f1lt3r, anthony_w, karl, fantasai, ed_work_, trackbot
20:05:03 [ChrisL]
zakim, +39 is tav
20:05:03 [Zakim]
+tav; got it
20:05:17 [ChrisL]
zakim, pick a victim
20:05:17 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose tav
20:05:53 [ed]
chair: erik
20:06:16 [anthony_w]
scribenick: anthony_w
20:06:20 [anthony_w]
scribe: anthony
20:07:09 [ed]
20:07:12 [ed]
20:07:16 [ChrisL]
las call comments
20:07:19 [f1lt3r]
f1lt3r has joined #svg
20:07:46 [anthony_w]
Topic: Last Call Comments
20:08:07 [anthony_w]
ED: If I close issues they disappear from the list because
20:08:23 [anthony_w]
... the tool only collects raised issues
20:08:42 [ChrisL]
documentation at
20:08:48 [anthony_w]
... I'd like to be able to extract Issues (LC comments) based on a particular product
20:09:04 [anthony_w]
... Some have already been done. But if some are completed they disappear off the list
20:09:13 [anthony_w]
... I'd like to see all them, no matter the status
20:09:32 [anthony_w]
CL: Has anyone tried to run an XSLT over the tracker dump?
20:09:47 [anthony_w]
ED: I suppose we should add the notes, action changed
20:09:52 [anthony_w]
20:09:52 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2331 -- <solidColor> references -- open
20:09:52 [trackbot]
20:10:08 [anthony_w]
AG: I did this one
20:10:42 [anthony_w]
... I ran a grep over the entire spec
20:11:00 [anthony_w]
... removed solidColor occurrences from the spec
20:11:09 [anthony_w]
... only found occurrences in paintServers
20:11:39 [ChrisL]
action anthony to add stuff from to his action
20:11:40 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2810 - Add stuff from to his action [on Anthony Grasso - due 2010-07-13].
20:11:54 [ChrisL]
In addition, four notes should be added to an issue:
20:11:54 [ChrisL]
* "ACTION: " followed by either "Reject" or "Accept" depending on how the comment was handled.
20:11:54 [ChrisL]
* "CHANGE-TYPE: " followed by either None, Editorial, or Substantive.
20:11:54 [ChrisL]
* "RESOLUTION: " followed by the text of the working group's resolution.
20:11:54 [ChrisL]
* "COMMENTER-RESPONSE: " followed by "Reject" or "Accept" depending on how the commenter reacted to the resolution.
20:12:22 [ChrisL]
see sample at
20:12:31 [anthony_w]
ED: Anthony, can you put the details of the resolution into the Issue
20:12:34 [anthony_w]
AG: Ok
20:13:02 [anthony_w]
ED: I propose we follow the annotations listed there and put those notes into the issue when they are completed
20:13:35 [ChrisL]
20:13:35 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2333 -- more BackgroundImage/enable-background issues -- open
20:13:35 [trackbot]
20:13:49 [anthony_w]
ED: Same with ISSUE-2333
20:14:00 [ChrisL]
20:14:00 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2348 -- direction property and the effect on text elements -- open
20:14:00 [trackbot]
20:14:10 [anthony_w]
ED: Seems we are missing some wording from Tiny 1.2
20:14:20 [anthony_w]
CL: The Tiny 1.2 wording is much better
20:14:30 [anthony_w]
ED: I went and ported the wording over
20:14:43 [anthony_w]
CL: Effectively we have already agreed on the wording before
20:14:56 [anthony_w]
ED: I will go ahead and close that one with the fields filled in
20:15:09 [anthony_w]
20:15:09 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2334 -- filter primitive subregion and feGaussianBlur, feTile and infinite filter input images -- raised
20:15:09 [trackbot]
20:15:33 [anthony_w]
ED: About GauissianBlur about filter regions and sub regions
20:15:58 [anthony_w]
... does Inkscape support filter regions/sub regions?
20:16:16 [anthony_w]
TB: I don't think so
20:16:26 [anthony_w]
CL: Does anyone support filter regions?
20:16:48 [ed]
20:17:01 [anthony_w]
ED: Firefox has a different interpretation of what it means
20:17:14 [anthony_w]
TB: The difference is in Firefox you have a hard edge
20:18:08 [anthony_w]
ED: What I'm thinking is it would be nice to support both behaviours and possibly a third one
20:18:22 [anthony_w]
... the way I'd like to do that is add a new filter element
20:18:53 [anthony_w]
... I could try to come up with some wording to clarify that
20:19:07 [anthony_w]
... if we agree that we want the old behaviour (same as the ASV)
20:19:21 [anthony_w]
... then extend filters in the new spec to add something new
20:19:29 [anthony_w]
... Robert hasn't responded to that email yet
20:19:34 [anthony_w]
... so not sure if he is happy with that
20:20:04 [anthony_w]
AG: I agree
20:20:28 [anthony_w]
TB: I can see cases where you want one or the other
20:21:31 [anthony_w]
... I think with Firefox suppose you have a picture and you want to simulate a piece of glass in front of it
20:21:35 [anthony_w]
... then you want a hard edge
20:21:57 [anthony_w]
ED: I did make an example where you may want the other way
20:22:26 [ed]
20:22:50 [ed]
20:23:09 [anthony_w]
ED: That is suppose to work in Firefox as well
20:23:51 [anthony_w]
TB: That suppose to have a shadow behind it
20:23:51 [anthony_w]
ED: I think it would be good to choose which way you want
20:24:05 [anthony_w]
... I haven't yet seen that much use of primitive sub regions
20:24:13 [anthony_w]
... I guess we are pretty free to choose whatever we want
20:24:25 [anthony_w]
... I think we should go with what is implemented in most viewers currently
20:26:33 [anthony_w]
anthony_w has joined #svg
20:27:30 [anthony_w]
ED: Either we wait for Robert come back with a response or I take an action to make some changes to the spec
20:28:00 [anthony_w]
ACTION: Erik to Determine new wording for ISSUE-2334 (filter sub-regions)
20:28:00 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2811 - Determine new wording for ISSUE-2334 (filter sub-regions) [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-07-13].
20:28:33 [anthony_w]
20:28:34 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2335 -- Clarify feConvolveMatrix bias property -- raised
20:28:34 [trackbot]
20:28:52 [anthony_w]
ED: I remember reading this before and discussing this before
20:29:00 [anthony_w]
... I think it would be good to have some test cases for this
20:29:08 [anthony_w]
... I think Jasper submitted some test cases in the past
20:29:13 [anthony_w]
... I can dig out those test cases
20:29:18 [anthony_w]
... and research the issue a bit more
20:29:32 [anthony_w]
... I think he's probably right in saying it's not fully clear about what effect it has
20:30:14 [anthony_w]
ACTION: Erik to Find the test case, commit it and make some proposed wording
20:30:14 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2812 - Find the test case, commit it and make some proposed wording [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-07-13].
20:30:20 [anthony_w]
CL: Will that be in UA tests?
20:30:29 [anthony_w]
... it might no so much the test will not be good enough
20:30:37 [anthony_w]
... more so about what is the right answer
20:30:54 [anthony_w]
ED: I will go back and have a discussion with the guy that implemented convolve matrix in opera
20:31:16 [anthony_w]
... I'll test in all implementations that support convolve matrix
20:32:55 [anthony_w]
20:32:55 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2336 -- SVG fragment identifiers - ok to have the same SVGViewAttribute twice? -- raised
20:32:55 [trackbot]
20:33:00 [ChrisL]
20:33:13 [anthony_w]
CL: The grammar allows you to have multiple ones
20:33:22 [anthony_w]
... I can't see a way to rewrite it to disallow it
20:33:35 [anthony_w]
... it would be an extremely long and tedious thing to do it
20:33:43 [anthony_w]
... I think it is better to say you can only have one of each
20:33:47 [anthony_w]
... and put that in the pros
20:33:56 [anthony_w]
... at the moment the syntax is easy to understand
20:34:06 [anthony_w]
... but he's right you can have it 12 times for example
20:34:12 [anthony_w]
... just need a sentence to say you can't do that
20:34:18 [anthony_w]
... need to do some testing here
20:34:23 [anthony_w]
ED: I think a test would be good here
20:34:40 [anthony_w]
CL: But we allow overriding of one of each
20:35:11 [anthony_w]
Chris to Propose wording for ISSUE-2236 to say if it is malformed it doesn't have an effect
20:35:25 [anthony_w]
ACTION: Chris to Propose wording for ISSUE-2336 to say if it is malformed it doesn't have an effect
20:35:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2813 - Propose wording for ISSUE-2336 to say if it is malformed it doesn't have an effect [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-07-13].
20:35:39 [ChrisL]
and also to say you can only have one of each of the tokens
20:36:01 [ChrisL]
20:36:01 [trackbot]
ACTION-2813 -- Chris Lilley to propose wording for ISSUE-2336 to say if it is malformed it doesn't have an effect -- due 2010-07-13 -- OPEN
20:36:01 [trackbot]
20:36:25 [anthony_w]
20:36:25 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2337 -- marker direction handling -- raised
20:36:25 [trackbot]
20:36:38 [anthony_w]
ED: Marker and direction handling
20:36:52 [anthony_w]
CL: We don't have markers in Tiny 1.2?
20:36:54 [anthony_w]
ED: No
20:37:09 [anthony_w]
CL: I think for this we should say, yes in this case it is undefined
20:37:13 [anthony_w]
... and you shouldn't depend on that
20:37:28 [ChrisL]
20:37:30 [anthony_w]
... that's just my off the cuff response
20:37:41 [anthony_w]
... it's primarily in the case for zero length lines
20:37:44 [anthony_w]
... and things like that
20:37:55 [anthony_w]
TB: There's an SVG attached to that email
20:38:01 [anthony_w]
CL: It is quite cleaver actually
20:38:04 [anthony_w]
ED: Nice example
20:38:51 [anthony_w]
CL: He also says for next SVG version, you should suppress marks that have no length and directionality
20:39:11 [anthony_w]
... mostly the direction is defined, but one that NULLs out the markers is fine
20:41:15 [anthony_w]
... I would really like to get rid of markers. Have one shape that allows you to make a marker
20:41:24 [anthony_w]
... they're not used that often
20:41:31 [anthony_w]
... and they complicate the model
20:42:18 [anthony_w]
ACTION: Anthony to Add wording to the specification to say that the behaviour is unspecified for those cases in ISSUE-2337
20:42:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2814 - Add wording to the specification to say that the behaviour is unspecified for those cases in ISSUE-2337 [on Anthony Grasso - due 2010-07-13].
20:43:14 [ChrisL]
20:43:15 [anthony_w]
20:43:15 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2338 -- type of feFunc* -- raised
20:43:15 [trackbot]
20:43:37 [anthony_w]
ED: I think I started writing a response to this
20:43:50 [anthony_w]
... His interpretation is correct I think
20:43:58 [anthony_w]
... I think I can write a complete response to this
20:44:09 [anthony_w]
... I will have to look into the table values and check if they are correct
20:44:25 [anthony_w]
... I think they are correct but I should probably go back and have a second look
20:46:02 [anthony_w]
ACTION: Erik to Draft a complete response to ISSUE-2338 and research the answers to the questions asked
20:46:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2815 - Draft a complete response to ISSUE-2338 and research the answers to the questions asked [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-07-13].
20:46:57 [anthony_w]
20:46:57 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2339 -- definition of azimuth, elevation for feDistantLight -- raised
20:46:57 [trackbot]
20:47:18 [anthony_w]
ED: I did put in some minor clarifications based on feedback given
20:47:32 [anthony_w]
... and I think Dr Hoffmann is correct
20:47:42 [anthony_w]
... in saying it is slightly unclear
20:47:58 [anthony_w]
... He does propose some changes
20:48:03 [anthony_w]
AG: Do you agree with those changes?
20:48:10 [anthony_w]
ED: I didn't get that far into the comments
20:48:48 [anthony_w]
ACTION: Anthony to Look into ISSUE-2339 and report back
20:48:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2816 - Look into ISSUE-2339 and report back [on Anthony Grasso - due 2010-07-13].
20:48:53 [ChrisL]
20:48:53 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2340 -- view and animation values lists - where can I find the promised note? -- raised
20:48:53 [trackbot]
20:49:16 [ChrisL]
20:49:30 [anthony_w]
CL: I can add the promised note
20:49:49 [anthony_w]
ACTION: Chris to Add the promised note relating to ISSUE-2340
20:49:50 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2817 - Add the promised note relating to ISSUE-2340 [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-07-13].
20:50:32 [anthony_w]
20:50:32 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2341 -- Clarify data types such as "<coordinate>+" -- raised
20:50:32 [trackbot]
20:50:47 [anthony_w]
ED: I think he's had this comment opened before
20:51:18 [anthony_w]
... some attributes define they're data type as being this <coordinate>+ instead of a list
20:51:38 [anthony_w]
AG: What should it be? Should it be a standard thing
20:52:00 [anthony_w]
CL: He points out if we harmonize it then some animations will break
20:52:10 [anthony_w]
... and said he also provided some samples
20:52:14 [anthony_w]
... not sure where they are
20:52:24 [anthony_w]
... I can look into this but I'm a bit worried about it
20:52:56 [anthony_w]
ED: The question is if there are interoperability problems
20:53:07 [anthony_w]
CL: I'll look through his previous comments and see what they said
20:53:37 [anthony_w]
ACTON: Chris to Investigate ISSUE-2341 and look for previous comments
20:53:44 [anthony_w]
ACTION: Chris to Investigate ISSUE-2341 and look for previous comments
20:53:44 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2818 - Investigate ISSUE-2341 and look for previous comments [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-07-13].
20:54:39 [anthony_w]
20:54:39 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2343 -- 15.12 Filter primitive ‘feComposite’ formula -- raised
20:54:39 [trackbot]
20:55:05 [anthony_w]
ED: I think he's correct it what he's reading
20:55:18 [anthony_w]
... it's pretty clear but it could be written out like he's suggesting
20:55:39 [anthony_w]
... doing the second part which includes all the formulas for the porter duff operations is a big change
20:55:55 [anthony_w]
CL: Are we requiring someone to have a copy of that paper?
20:56:03 [anthony_w]
ED: I guess so
20:56:24 [anthony_w]
AG: I have all the equations in the compositing spec
20:56:31 [anthony_w]
ED: We could informally link to that
20:56:38 [anthony_w]
CL: That is a good idea
20:57:01 [anthony_w]
... Does feComp allow you to use all the compositing operations
20:57:31 [anthony_w]
... I think creating an informative link is fine
20:58:34 [anthony_w]
ACTION: Anthony to Add proposed wording from ISSUE2343 and add an informative link to the compositing specification
20:58:34 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2819 - Add proposed wording from ISSUE2343 and add an informative link to the compositing specification [on Anthony Grasso - due 2010-07-13].
21:00:25 [ChrisL]
21:00:25 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2344 -- Update references section -- raised
21:00:25 [trackbot]
21:00:47 [Tav]
21:03:36 [anthony_w]
ACTION: Erik to Create a test for feComposite with negative values outside the allowable range
21:03:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2820 - Create a test for feComposite with negative values outside the allowable range [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-07-13].
21:04:16 [ChrisL]
21:06:07 [anthony_w]
CL: I noticed LR suggested that we may not want to use the latest reference. I'm not sure why we wouldn't want to reference of the latest version of the ICC spec
21:06:31 [anthony_w]
... there's been suggestion not to use some of them
21:07:35 [anthony_w]
ED: I think you can go ahead and edit the spec
21:08:11 [anthony_w]
21:08:11 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2345 -- 15.17 feGaussianBlur -- raised
21:08:11 [trackbot]
21:08:55 [ChrisL]
action: chris to update the references section for issue-2344
21:08:55 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2821 - Update the references section for issue-2344 [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-07-13].
21:09:22 [anthony_w]
ED: First point is bad editing, so I fixed that
21:09:40 [anthony_w]
... the second one (B) I agree with that one as well
21:09:58 [anthony_w]
... and for the third one (C)...
21:10:04 [anthony_w]
CL: We've talked about this before
21:10:09 [anthony_w]
... where you get a blur in one direction
21:10:17 [anthony_w]
ED: It doesn't explicitly mention that case
21:10:25 [anthony_w]
... I don't recall if I added the test case
21:10:40 [anthony_w]
... There is a test in the filters module
21:10:45 [anthony_w]
... co can probably just move that over
21:10:53 [anthony_w]
21:11:17 [anthony_w]
ED: It's not exactly clear what needs to be done, but I can take a look at it anyway
21:12:28 [anthony_w]
ACTION: Erik to Respond to ISSUE-2345 and commit a test case for it
21:12:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2822 - Respond to ISSUE-2345 and commit a test case for it [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-07-13].
21:13:55 [ChrisL]
21:13:56 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2346 -- previous discussion about filterRes -- raised
21:13:56 [trackbot]
21:14:01 [anthony_w]
ED: I would have to look deeper into this
21:14:13 [anthony_w]
... if some ones can take a look though, that would be great
21:16:42 [anthony_w]
AG: It's a fairly long one
21:17:04 [anthony_w]
ED: I think the rounding one, wasn't that fixed?
21:18:39 [anthony_w]
... must have been some other filter primitive
21:19:09 [anthony_w]
... one filter where we had a 'c' algorithm for where we defined the rounding
21:19:43 [ed]
"When the seed number is handed over to the algorithm above it must first be truncated, i.e. rounded to the closest integer value towards zero."
21:19:56 [ed]
feTurbulence, the 'seed' attribute
21:20:01 [ed]
21:20:08 [anthony_w]
... for the seed value in feTurbulence we say how to round the number
21:21:17 [anthony_w]
ED: Not sure if it makes sense to use the same rounding methods here
21:22:05 [ed]
21:22:33 [anthony_w]
AG: Could we apply the same fix on feTurbulence to this one here?
21:23:24 [anthony_w]
ED: So if you put a very small result it, you would probably get a good result anyway
21:23:50 [anthony_w]
... the round applies to anything you put in there
21:25:35 [anthony_w]
ED: Just curious about the media type thing
21:25:57 [anthony_w]
CL: There were two requested changes
21:26:24 [anthony_w]
... both comments have been folded into the master directory
21:26:31 [anthony_w]
... so we are good really
21:29:15 [Zakim]
21:29:16 [Zakim]
21:29:17 [fantasai]
btw, can you guys look over the responses to CSS Styling Attributes LCWD sometime and let me know if I can request CR yet? :) The closed-but-not-verified issues are all SVGWG.
21:29:19 [Zakim]
21:29:20 [Zakim]
21:29:20 [Zakim]
GA_SVGWG()4:00PM has ended
21:29:22 [Zakim]
Attendees were +39.537.7.aaaa, ed, anthony_w, ChrisL, tav
21:30:38 [anthony_w]
zakim, bye
21:30:38 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #svg
21:30:43 [anthony_w]
RRSAgent, make minutes
21:30:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate anthony_w
21:34:36 [fantasai]
fantasai has left #svg
22:15:18 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #svg