IRC log of svg on 2010-11-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:01:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #svg
19:01:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:01:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:01:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #svg
19:01:29 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
19:01:29 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
19:01:30 [trackbot]
Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
19:01:30 [trackbot]
Date: 11 November 2010
19:02:25 [heycam]
Zakim, who is on the call?
19:02:25 [Zakim]
sorry, heycam, I don't know what conference this is
19:02:26 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, fantasai, ed, anthony, heycam, karl, trackbot
19:02:30 [heycam]
Zakim, this is SVG
19:02:30 [Zakim]
sorry, heycam, I do not see a conference named 'SVG' in progress or scheduled at this time
19:02:32 [heycam]
Zakim, this is GASVG
19:02:32 [Zakim]
sorry, heycam, I do not see a conference named 'GASVG' in progress or scheduled at this time
19:02:35 [anthony_]
anthony_ has joined #svg
19:02:47 [anthony_]
anthony_ has left #svg
19:03:58 [anthony_work]
anthony_work has joined #svg
19:04:26 [anthony]
anthony has joined #svg
19:08:25 [heycam]
RRSAgent, stop
20:59:54 [jwatt]
jwatt has joined #svg
21:00:45 [Zakim]
21:00:49 [heycam]
Zakim, [ is me
21:00:49 [Zakim]
sorry, heycam, I do not recognize a party named '['
21:00:54 [heycam]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
21:00:54 [Zakim]
+heycam; got it
21:00:59 [heycam]
Zakim, who is on the call?
21:00:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [Microsoft], heycam
21:01:23 [Zakim]
21:01:33 [ed]
Zakim, ??P5 is me
21:01:33 [Zakim]
+ed; got it
21:01:54 [anthony]
anthony has joined #svg
21:03:01 [heycam]
Chair: Cameron
21:03:08 [heycam]
21:05:55 [Zakim]
21:06:03 [anthony]
Zakim, ??P7 is me
21:06:03 [Zakim]
+anthony; got it
21:06:05 [jwatt]
I would if I could figure out how to get the number pad to come up in the new version of skype
21:06:58 [Zakim]
21:07:20 [jwatt]
Zakim, ??P10 is me
21:07:20 [Zakim]
+jwatt; got it
21:07:57 [jwatt]
for anyone else hitting that problem in future, you need to hide your sidebar to get the number pad to show up
21:07:59 [jwatt]
21:08:14 [anthony]
Scribe: anthony
21:08:17 [anthony]
ScribeNick: anthony
21:09:16 [anthony]
Topic: Telcon Time
21:09:32 [anthony]
CM: Ed we did we resolve what was discussed in terms of telcon time?
21:09:43 [anthony]
ED: What we discussed at TPAC meeting was to have the telcon one hour earlier than before
21:09:55 [anthony]
... as I understood it that was one hour before the actual time
21:10:02 [anthony]
... and not the shifted time
21:10:16 [anthony]
... so essentially it means 20:00 UTC
21:10:28 [anthony]
CM: 2 hours ago was my translated time
21:10:34 [anthony]
... but it's actually 1 hour ago
21:10:53 [anthony]
AG: So 7am for me and 9am for CM
21:10:59 [anthony]
PD: So 9pm for you ED?
21:11:08 [anthony]
ED: It's 10pm here now
21:11:21 [anthony]
PD: Noon for PST
21:11:27 [anthony]
... that does not apply to the task force correct?
21:11:37 [anthony]
ED: As far as I know the task force has not changed the time
21:11:45 [anthony]
... I think that is 20:00 UTC
21:11:48 [anthony]
... I'll double check
21:12:16 [anthony]
... Yes task force 20:00 UTC
21:12:28 [anthony]
CM: That's the time we want to move to for our teclon time right?
21:13:10 [anthony]
... this means that the task force time is at the same time?
21:13:28 [anthony]
ED: Actually I think, 20:00 UTC is the time we have now in the telcon system
21:13:36 [anthony]
... for SVG teclons
21:13:38 [anthony]
... check that now
21:13:44 [ed]
21:14:22 [anthony]
ED: I'm happy with we have now
21:14:27 [anthony]
... so we shouldn't change anything
21:14:32 [anthony]
... as in starting 1 hour ago
21:14:37 [anthony]
AG: That's fine with me
21:14:51 [anthony]
... PD is that fine with you?
21:14:55 [anthony]
PD: That's great
21:15:05 [anthony]
CM: And you also discussed having single telcon a week?
21:15:15 [anthony]
ED: I think everyone at the meeting was ok with that
21:15:22 [anthony]
... and we decided to go with Thursdays
21:15:34 [anthony]
RESOLUTION: We will have 1 telcon per week at 20:00 UTC on Thursdays
21:15:51 [anthony]
Topic: Little TPAC Summary
21:16:06 [anthony]
CM: I did skim through the minutes
21:16:20 [anthony]
... but I just wanted to get some broad ideas on what was decided about plans and directions
21:16:48 [anthony]
ED: What I heard we were aiming for some what stable specs for June 2011
21:17:12 [anthony]
... those specs will include public fx Transforms 2D/3D, Filters spec (that apply to HTML), join Animation model spec
21:17:17 [anthony]
... the SVG Integration spec
21:17:26 [anthony]
... and as a lower priority the Advanced Gradients
21:17:34 [anthony]
CM: At what sort of level by June?
21:17:46 [anthony]
ED: Not sure we decided on, but I heard somewhat stable
21:18:00 [anthony]
... but it suggests and agressive schedule for getting drafts out
21:18:32 [anthony]
... I think we can probably have a couple of sepcs ready by then. Not sure if they'll all be at the same level
21:18:46 [anthony]
CM: Might be duable if we all put an effort in
21:18:53 [anthony]
PD: Two additional items
21:19:08 [anthony]
... We were going to put Erik on the SVG DOM
21:19:38 [anthony]
... And thinking about simplifying the DOM, having getters and setters and simpler list API
21:19:55 [anthony]
... only other thing was we identified owners
21:20:02 [anthony]
... Transforms is and has been driven by Anthony
21:20:09 [anthony]
... Animation was going to be driven by Dean
21:20:15 [anthony]
... Filters was going to be driven by Robert
21:20:33 [anthony]
... Advanced Gradients sounded like a partnership by Tav and Anthony
21:20:38 [anthony]
CM: Robert?
21:20:45 [anthony]
21:21:24 [anthony]
ED: I think someone from Apple said that they were happy to be an editor of Filters
21:21:32 [anthony]
... I'm pretty sure I have an action relating to that
21:21:38 [anthony]
... can't remember off hand who it was
21:21:50 [anthony]
PD: The only other thing we said was that, to do two things around testing
21:22:08 [anthony]
... as we look to make tests, we move to make tests for the new W3C testing harness
21:22:22 [anthony]
... and we deliver tests and specs as much as we could at the same time
21:22:48 [anthony]
... and Doug was going to lead investigation into doing crowed sourcing for test development
21:23:09 [anthony]
CM: Obviously we are not going to convert all our existing tests to that?
21:23:12 [anthony]
PD: No
21:23:19 [anthony]
ED: I think it's probably best to go with the current test suite now
21:23:26 [anthony]
... but for future test development
21:23:34 [anthony]
... we should use the new harness
21:23:45 [anthony]
CM: Does it enable more automated testing like ref tests?
21:23:59 [anthony]
ED: Yes, and I think it makes sense to use ref tests where we can
21:24:07 [anthony]
... not everything can be script automated
21:24:17 [anthony]
... not sure if scripted tests and ref tests will cover everything
21:24:24 [anthony]
... but it will cover a big portion
21:25:05 [anthony]
CM: The drivers for these task force specs are they the editors?
21:25:24 [anthony]
PD: My understanding was that they are at least the owners, as in they are responsible to get it from point A to pint B
21:25:31 [anthony]
21:25:46 [anthony]
PD: And both myself and anyone else should contribute to make that happen
21:27:12 [Zakim]
21:27:33 [Zakim]
21:27:41 [anthony]
Zakim, ??P7 is me
21:27:41 [Zakim]
+anthony; got it
21:28:31 [anthony]
Topic: Plan for 1.1 Test Suite
21:28:47 [anthony]
CM: Was 1.1 2nd Edition discussed at the F2F as well?
21:29:20 [anthony]
ED: What we discussed at TPAC was to try and finish the last call issues
21:29:27 [anthony]
... and close them before December 15th
21:29:32 [anthony]
... and around the same time
21:29:39 [anthony]
... we should have a somewhat stable charter document
21:29:51 [anthony]
... because it will take a few weeks for the AC review to happen
21:30:02 [anthony]
CM: That's mostly a task for Doug and Chris
21:30:07 [anthony]
ED: I know Doug has started work on it
21:30:11 [anthony]
... and he showed some work on it
21:30:37 [anthony]
CM: The plan for having thses last call issues by the 15th Dec
21:30:50 [anthony]
... was that we could publish the spec at the next maturity level as well?
21:31:05 [anthony]
ED: I think the plan is to ask for publication some time in december
21:31:16 [anthony]
... and have it move to recommendation some time in January
21:31:23 [anthony]
... if everything goes according to plan
21:31:35 [anthony]
... because the plan is to not have the 1.1 2nd Edition in the charter document
21:31:39 [anthony]
... just new things
21:32:05 [anthony]
CM: Test suite do you have a status of that?
21:32:14 [anthony]
ED: I've been doing updates and I've been working on it today
21:32:19 [anthony]
... generating reference images
21:32:24 [anthony]
... and fixing minor issues
21:32:30 [anthony]
... and I sent an email to the list
21:32:33 [anthony]
... with the issues
21:32:47 [anthony]
... some tests have some unclear or missing pass criteria
21:32:53 [anthony]
... some tests have missing revision numbers
21:33:02 [anthony]
... due to the way they were checked in
21:33:08 [anthony]
... missing 'ko' flag
21:33:12 [anthony]
... some tests are using
21:33:18 [anthony]
... red to indicate pass
21:33:24 [anthony]
... but not to concered about that
21:33:41 [anthony]
... So there are lot of animation tests that are missing written pass criteria which is bad
21:33:49 [anthony]
CM: Do we need to give someone an action to look at some of those
21:34:09 [anthony]
AG: Might have to triage those because there are alot of those
21:34:19 [anthony]
ED: Seems that there are about 30 or so
21:34:23 [anthony]
CM: Can you put that on a wiki page
21:34:27 [ed]
21:34:35 [anthony]
ED: Already emailed the lsit
21:34:46 [anthony]
21:35:09 [anthony]
AG: If we divide that up between us, could have that done in no time
21:35:13 [anthony]
CM: Time line for tests suite work?
21:35:35 [anthony]
ED: I think that it is ok to have it done by december if we all do the work
21:35:43 [anthony]
... I've run it from start to finish a few times
21:35:56 [anthony]
... and everytime I've run through it I've come across issues
21:36:06 [anthony]
... this list is not complete with all the issues
21:36:19 [anthony]
... so basically it's making sure it's ok for releasing
21:36:26 [anthony]
CM: Is that something you were going to continue on and do?
21:36:28 [anthony]
ED: I think so
21:36:39 [anthony]
CM: So things that need to be done are
21:36:43 [anthony]
... addressing pass criteria
21:36:46 [anthony]
.. and fixing red
21:36:53 [anthony]
... and there are some tests which need to be approved by us
21:36:59 [anthony]
ED: I wasn't too concerned about those
21:37:05 [anthony]
... we could put more in
21:37:11 [anthony]
... or we can keep going with the ones we have already
21:37:24 [anthony]
CM: By adding to those?
21:37:30 [anthony]
ED: The ones that I've been reviewing
21:37:44 [anthony]
CM: Ideally we'd be able to approve or not the ones you've reviewed so far
21:37:55 [anthony]
ED: If you have a list of those we could go through those quickly
21:38:01 [anthony]
CM: Don't have the list at the moment
21:38:59 [anthony]
ED: Can we run the test suite status generation script again?
21:40:12 [anthony]
AG: Yes, I can run the test suite status again
21:40:42 [anthony]
... after the telcon, and email out
21:41:09 [anthony]
ED: Just make sure to run an update before you generate
21:41:23 [anthony]
CM: There are still some tests that heven't been reviewed
21:41:28 [anthony]
... I don't know at this point
21:41:41 [anthony]
... if we want to consider not reviewing those
21:41:51 [anthony]
ED: The sooner we close on the final list of tests
21:41:57 [anthony]
... the easier it will be
21:42:11 [anthony]
... we still need to run through the implementation status of each test
21:43:00 [anthony]
AG: Might be worth waiting for the status report
21:43:07 [anthony]
CM: There are a bunch that I reviewed
21:43:11 [anthony]
... of the Microsoft tests
21:43:24 [anthony]
... and some of them have questions or arguments and I've marked those as reviewed
21:43:37 [anthony]
... and there are still some that haven't been responded to
21:43:40 [anthony]
PD: Is that right?
21:43:48 [anthony]
CM: I can go back a check back through my email
21:44:05 [anthony]
... and if there are ones that have outstanding comments I'll email out
21:44:09 [anthony]
PD: I'll also look
21:44:18 [anthony]
... if we've missed anything that would also be great
21:45:02 [anthony]
Topic: SVG 2
21:45:18 [anthony]
CM: People are still bringing up issues that might apply to SVG 1.1.
21:45:25 [anthony]
... since we want to get the document out
21:45:36 [anthony]
... don't want to make too many drastic changes to it
21:45:45 [anthony]
... I want a place to address these issues
21:45:47 [anthony]
... that come up
21:45:52 [anthony]
... What is the current plan for SVG 2
21:46:26 [anthony]
ED: I think we touched or discussed topics
21:46:39 [anthony]
... but we didn't talk about it alot
21:46:57 [anthony]
... we are still on the plan on using the modules for parts of the spec
21:47:15 [anthony]
CM: When you were talking before about these core DOM changes
21:47:23 [anthony]
... it sounded more like stuff that effects SVG 2
21:47:28 [anthony]
... rather than a separate document
21:47:47 [anthony]
PD: The way I think about it is SVG 2 is going to be modulised like we talked about
21:47:53 [anthony]
... you're right about the DOM work
21:47:57 [anthony]
... we need to figure out where that goes
21:48:02 [anthony]
... and the SVG integration module
21:48:10 [anthony]
... these two are portion of the SVG 2
21:48:32 [anthony]
... might want to look at or add to or improve things
21:48:41 [anthony]
... which is part of the SVG 2 track
21:49:13 [anthony]
CM: In terms of what SVG 2 the document is going to include
21:49:27 [anthony]
... is say the integration document going to be part of the SVG 2 family of specifications
21:49:36 [anthony]
... or will that text go into the SVG 2 document itself
21:49:59 [anthony]
... I remember talking about a while ago about producing modules
21:50:05 [anthony]
... and bringing them together
21:50:21 [anthony]
... never been quite sure logistically where the text is going to go
21:50:32 [anthony]
ED: We do have the SVG 2 base document there in place
21:50:37 [anthony]
... it is possible to add stuff to it
21:50:49 [ed]
21:50:53 [anthony]
CM: The question is if I'm going to add some text
21:50:57 [anthony]
... where do I go to add it
21:52:13 [anthony]
PD: I think that for example, I think that Anthony wants me to look at SVG Compositing and maybe that's a module in itself
21:52:21 [anthony]
... should probably make a first pass at what the modules are
21:52:29 [anthony]
... so we don't have to revisit it
21:52:40 [anthony]
CM: We should decide what features are going to be part of SVG 2
21:53:08 [anthony]
... in the broad SVG 2 time frame and then from that and see which are modules
21:53:23 [anthony]
... that are going to be seperate at the moment
21:53:26 [anthony]
... and which ones are not
21:53:44 [anthony]
... and the features that are not modules
21:53:50 [anthony]
... will have to go into the document itself
21:54:01 [anthony]
... and we'll have to work out what the structure is like
21:54:17 [anthony]
... one thing that bugs me about SVG 1.1 it's wordy in some places
21:54:22 [anthony]
... where it doesn't need to be
21:54:26 [anthony]
... and not detailed enough
21:54:43 [anthony]
... and I wonder how much we want to use from the 1.1
21:55:58 [anthony]
AG: I remember Doug was saying use SVG 1.1 but mark it up as text that is unapproved
21:56:01 [anthony]
... then we review it
21:56:07 [anthony]
... so that it goes to a reviewed status
21:56:34 [anthony]
CM: If someone has time it would be good to go through and rewrite whole sections
21:57:07 [Zakim]
21:57:54 [jwatt]
scribenick: jwatt
21:57:57 [jwatt]
scribe: Jonathan Watt
21:58:26 [jwatt]
topic: rx/ry clamping on <rect>
21:58:28 [heycam]
21:58:43 [jwatt]
ED: I'm happy with the suggested wording and don't mind changing tests
21:58:49 [jwatt] we want to put it in 1.1 or not
21:58:56 [jwatt]
CM: I'm happy to put it in 1.1
21:59:02 [jwatt]'s a small clarification
21:59:11 [jwatt]
ED: I think it's better to put it in than not
22:01:06 [jwatt]
PD: if I don't come back to it, assume that I think it's okay
22:01:16 [jwatt]
...the cost of changing for us is high right now though
22:01:52 [ed]
22:03:46 [jwatt]
ED: if we make the proposed change, that test would need to be changed
22:04:11 [jwatt]
...what Firefox is doing right now would then be the correct behavior I believe
22:05:22 [jwatt]
PD: I'll comment on the list
22:06:04 [jwatt]
Topic: gzip MIME-type
22:06:24 [jwatt]
ED: people seemed unhappy with the changed wording
22:06:44 [jwatt] we want to have it as a supported format for SVG, or is it just intended for transfer?
22:07:36 [jwatt]
...I think people generally set the HTTP header
22:08:02 [jwatt] tend to end up with .svgz files on your local machine, and it's actually useful
22:08:07 [jwatt]
...I think most editors support it
22:08:47 [jwatt]
CM: I think the preferred way is to have your server set up to send the appropriate headers, rather than having a separate MIME-type
22:09:12 [jwatt]
...I'm not convinced the spec needs to say anything about gzip, when it doesn't say anything about other compression formats
22:09:53 [jwatt]
PD: would we potentially change 1.1 for this?
22:10:06 [jwatt]
ED: we won't change it if people really dislike the change
22:11:09 [jwatt]
PD: we aren't going to support opening .svgz from the local file system in IE9
22:11:25 [jwatt]
CM: making it a requirement would be a big change at this point
22:11:36 [jwatt]
ED: okay, I'm fine with dropping this for now in that case
22:11:52 [jwatt]
...I'd like to spec it out in 2.0 though
22:13:20 [jwatt]
Topic: Actions and issues in Tracker
22:14:46 [jwatt]
CM: I see there are many open actions in Tracker
22:15:15 [jwatt]
... and we're probably at the point again when lots of it is now irrelevant, making Tracker less useful
22:15:48 [jwatt]
...I think it would help if it got back to the stage when it's an accurate reflection of what has to be done, and when
22:16:00 [jwatt]
...I think we need to add a component to the telcons for this
22:17:41 [jwatt]
PD: does Tracker support cross-group collaboration
22:17:43 [jwatt]
CM: no
22:18:05 [jwatt]
...the fx task force are using tracker
22:18:38 [jwatt] can get a view of all the issues assigned to you across all Tracker instances, but that's about the limit of the cross-group integration
22:18:44 [jwatt]
..."My Tracker"
22:19:15 [jwatt]
PD: one thing that concerns me is that people in the CSS WG hadn't heard of the work Antony had done
22:19:36 [jwatt]
...and in another case a group left at TPAC because they didn't know there was a meeting
22:21:06 [jwatt]
CM: I'd imagine you have reps from groups out in other groups reporting back
22:21:15 [jwatt] their group
22:21:25 [jwatt]
...which is probably the way to solve this
22:22:05 [jwatt]
...minute emails to the lists have a good summary of the actions and resolutions at the top
22:22:22 [jwatt]
...maybe an email with just that and a link to the full minutes should go out to other groups lists
22:22:59 [jwatt]
ED: fantasai does send out summaries via twitter
22:23:34 [jwatt]
...I think pulling out the resolutions and putting them at the top would be an improvement
22:23:42 [jwatt]
PD: we don't use resolutions enough
22:23:52 [jwatt]
ED: we need to make sure we act on them
22:24:03 [jwatt]
...track them in the wiki?
22:24:18 [jwatt]
CM: I think tracker has some crude tools for resolution tracking
22:24:49 [jwatt]
...I think we should be clearer about desicions and making sure they get turned into resulutions
22:26:43 [jwatt]
JW: I'm concerned we don't remember the details of what we talk about and decide, and the details get lost in minutes
22:28:50 [jwatt]
...we should really have topic pages in the wiki where we summarize the important details from telcons
22:29:35 [jwatt] that we don't have to waste so much time going over the same topics because we forgot the details of when we discussed the topic last time
22:29:54 [jwatt]
...or if not a summary, at least topic pages where we add links to relevant minutes
22:30:18 [jwatt]
PD: shame our wiki doesn't work very well
22:30:24 [jwatt]
<general agreement>
22:32:32 [jwatt]
ED: I talked to someone after TPAC who said we might be able to share resources
22:32:44 [jwatt]
PD: I'd be willing to look into resources
22:33:09 [ed]
s/someone/Peter Linss (css wg co-chair)/
22:35:46 [jwatt]
PD: I'd like a solution that pushes out info, like to my email box
22:35:55 [jwatt]
...and provides good query tools
22:37:02 [jwatt]
<agreement that PD will look into other solutions that would be agreeable to the WG>
22:37:36 [jwatt]
CM: I worry that we may just swap one set of problems for another, and take up a lot of time switching
22:38:24 [jwatt]
...and that changing wouldn't solve the problems
22:39:14 [Zakim]
22:39:16 [jwatt]
trackbot: end telcon
22:39:16 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
22:39:16 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been [Microsoft], heycam, ed, anthony, jwatt
22:39:17 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
22:39:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
22:39:18 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
22:39:18 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items