See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 11 November 2010
<jwatt> I would if I could figure out how to get the number pad to come up in the new version of skype
<jwatt> for anyone else hitting that problem in future, you need to hide your sidebar to get the number pad to show up
<jwatt> crazy
<anthony> Scribe: anthony
<scribe> ScribeNick: anthony
CM: Ed we did we resolve what was discussed in terms of telcon time?
ED: What we discussed at TPAC
meeting was to have the telcon one hour earlier than
before
... as I understood it that was one hour before the actual
time
... and not the shifted time
... so essentially it means 20:00 UTC
CM: 2 hours ago was my translated
time
... but it's actually 1 hour ago
AG: So 7am for me and 9am for CM
PD: So 9pm for you ED?
ED: It's 10pm here now
PD: Noon for PST
... that does not apply to the task force correct?
ED: As far as I know the task
force has not changed the time
... I think that is 20:00 UTC
... I'll double check
... Yes task force 20:00 UTC
CM: That's the time we want to
move to for our teclon time right?
... this means that the task force time is at the same
time?
ED: Actually I think, 20:00 UTC
is the time we have now in the telcon system
... for SVG teclons
... check that now
<ed> http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar.html#s_2216
ED: I'm happy with we have
now
... so we shouldn't change anything
... as in starting 1 hour ago
AG: That's fine with me
... PD is that fine with you?
PD: That's great
CM: And you also discussed having single telcon a week?
ED: I think everyone at the
meeting was ok with that
... and we decided to go with Thursdays
RESOLUTION: We will have 1 telcon per week at 20:00 UTC on Thursdays
CM: I did skim through the
minutes
... but I just wanted to get some broad ideas on what was
decided about plans and directions
ED: What I heard we were aiming
for some what stable specs for June 2011
... those specs will include public fx Transforms 2D/3D,
Filters spec (that apply to HTML), join Animation model
spec
... the SVG Integration spec
... and as a lower priority the Advanced Gradients
CM: At what sort of level by June?
ED: Not sure we decided on, but I
heard somewhat stable
... but it suggests and agressive schedule for getting drafts
out
... I think we can probably have a couple of sepcs ready by
then. Not sure if they'll all be at the same level
CM: Might be duable if we all put an effort in
PD: Two additional items
... We were going to put Erik on the SVG DOM
... And thinking about simplifying the DOM, having getters and
setters and simpler list API
... only other thing was we identified owners
... Transforms is and has been driven by Anthony
... Animation was going to be driven by Dean
... Filters was going to be driven by Robert
... Advanced Gradients sounded like a partnership by Tav and
Anthony
CM: Robert?
PD: ROC
ED: I think someone from Apple
said that they were happy to be an editor of Filters
... I'm pretty sure I have an action relating to that
... can't remember off hand who it was
PD: The only other thing we said
was that, to do two things around testing
... as we look to make tests, we move to make tests for the new
W3C testing harness
... and we deliver tests and specs as much as we could at the
same time
... and Doug was going to lead investigation into doing crowed
sourcing for test development
CM: Obviously we are not going to convert all our existing tests to that?
PD: No
ED: I think it's probably best to
go with the current test suite now
... but for future test development
... we should use the new harness
CM: Does it enable more automated testing like ref tests?
ED: Yes, and I think it makes
sense to use ref tests where we can
... not everything can be script automated
... not sure if scripted tests and ref tests will cover
everything
... but it will cover a big portion
CM: The drivers for these task force specs are they the editors?
PD: My understanding was that
they are at least the owners, as in they are responsible to get
it from point A to point B
... And both myself and anyone else should contribute to make
that happen
CM: Was 1.1 2nd Edition discussed at the F2F as well?
ED: What we discussed at TPAC was
to try and finish the last call issues
... and close them before December 15th
... and around the same time
... we should have a somewhat stable charter document
... because it will take a few weeks for the AC review to
happen
CM: That's mostly a task for Doug and Chris
ED: I know Doug has started work
on it
... and he showed some work on it
CM: The plan for having thses
last call issues by the 15th Dec
... was that we could publish the spec at the next maturity
level as well?
ED: I think the plan is to ask
for publication some time in december
... and have it move to recommendation some time in
January
... if everything goes according to plan
... because the plan is to not have the 1.1 2nd Edition in the
charter document
... just new things
CM: Test suite do you have a status of that?
ED: I've been doing updates and
I've been working on it today
... generating reference images
... and fixing minor issues
... and I sent an email to the list
... with the issues
... some tests have some unclear or missing pass criteria
... some tests have missing revision numbers
... due to the way they were checked in
... missing 'ko' flag
... some tests are using
... red to indicate pass
... but not to concered about that
... So there are lot of animation tests that are missing
written pass criteria which is bad
CM: Do we need to give someone an action to look at some of those
AG: Might have to triage those because there are alot of those
ED: Seems that there are about 30 or so
CM: Can you put that on a wiki page
<ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0130.html
ED: Already emailed the list
AG: If we divide that up between us, could have that done in no time
CM: Time line for tests suite work?
ED: I think that it is ok to have
it done by december if we all do the work
... I've run it from start to finish a few times
... and everytime I've run through it I've come across
issues
... this list is not complete with all the issues
... so basically it's making sure it's ok for releasing
CM: Is that something you were going to continue on and do?
ED: I think so
CM: So things that need to be
done are
... addressing pass criteria
... and fixing red
... and there are some tests which need to be approved by
us
ED: I wasn't too concerned about
those
... we could put more in
... or we can keep going with the ones we have already
CM: By adding to those?
ED: The ones that I've been reviewing
CM: Ideally we'd be able to approve or not the ones you've reviewed so far
ED: If you have a list of those we could go through those quickly
CM: Don't have the list at the moment
ED: Can we run the test suite status generation script again?
AG: Yes, I can run the test suite
status again
... after the telcon, and email out
ED: Just make sure to run an update before you generate
CM: There are still some tests
that heven't been reviewed
... I don't know at this point
... if we want to consider not reviewing those
ED: The sooner we close on the
final list of tests
... the easier it will be
... we still need to run through the implementation status of
each test
AG: Might be worth waiting for the status report
CM: There are a bunch that I
reviewed
... of the Microsoft tests
... and some of them have questions or arguments and I've
marked those as reviewed
... and there are still some that haven't been responded to
PD: Is that right?
CM: I can go back a check back
through my email
... and if there are ones that have outstanding comments I'll
email out
PD: I'll also look
... if we've missed anything that would also be great
CM: People are still bringing up
issues that might apply to SVG 1.1.
... since we want to get the document out
... don't want to make too many drastic changes to it
... I want a place to address these issues
... that come up
... What is the current plan for SVG 2
ED: I think we touched or
discussed topics
... but we didn't talk about it alot
... we are still on the plan on using the modules for parts of
the spec
CM: When you were talking before
about these core DOM changes
... it sounded more like stuff that effects SVG 2
... rather than a separate document
PD: The way I think about it is
SVG 2 is going to be modulised like we talked about
... you're right about the DOM work
... we need to figure out where that goes
... and the SVG integration module
... these two are portion of the SVG 2
... might want to look at or add to or improve things
... which is part of the SVG 2 track
CM: In terms of what SVG 2 the
document is going to include
... is say the integration document going to be part of the SVG
2 family of specifications
... or will that text go into the SVG 2 document itself
... I remember talking about a while ago about producing
modules
... and bringing them together
... never been quite sure logistically where the text is going
to go
ED: We do have the SVG 2 base
document there in place
... it is possible to add stuff to it
<ed> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/2.0/
CM: The question is if I'm going
to add some text
... where do I go to add it
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
... should probably make a first pass at what the modules
are
... so we don't have to revisit it
CM: We should decide what
features are going to be part of SVG 2
... in the broad SVG 2 time frame and then from that and see
which are modules
... that are going to be seperate at the moment
... and which ones are not
... and the features that are not modules
... will have to go into the document itself
... and we'll have to work out what the structure is like
... one thing that bugs me about SVG 1.1 it's wordy in some
places
... where it doesn't need to be
... and not detailed enough
... and I wonder how much we want to use from the 1.1
AG: I remember Doug was saying
use SVG 1.1 but mark it up as text that is unapproved
... then we review it
... so that it goes to a reviewed status
CM: If someone has time it would be good to go through and rewrite whole sections
<jwatt> scribenick: jwatt
<scribe> scribe: Jonathan Watt
<heycam> http://www.w3.org/mid/20101101023449.GK28301@wok.mcc.id.au
ED: I'm happy with the suggested
wording and don't mind changing tests
... do we want to put it in 1.1 or not
CM: I'm happy to put it in
1.1
... it's a small clarification
ED: I think it's better to put it in than not
PD: if I don't come back to it,
assume that I think it's okay
... the cost of changing for us is high right now though
<ed> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/shapes-rect-03-t.svg
ED: if we make the proposed
change, that test would need to be changed
... what Firefox is doing right now would then be the correct
behavior I believe
PD: I'll comment on the list
ED: people seemed unhappy with
the changed wording
... do we want to have it as a supported format for SVG, or is
it just intended for transfer?
... I think people generally set the HTTP header
... you tend to end up with .svgz files on your local machine,
and it's actually useful
... I think most editors support it
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
... I'm not convinced the spec needs to say anything about
gzip, when it doesn't say anything about other compression
formats
PD: would we potentially change 1.1 for this?
ED: we won't change it if people really dislike the change
PD: we aren't going to support opening .svgz from the local file system in IE9
CM: making it a requirement would be a big change at this point
ED: okay, I'm fine with dropping
this for now in that case
... I'd like to spec it out in 2.0 though
CM: I see there are many open
actions in Tracker
... and we're probably at the point again when lots of it is
now irrelevant, making Tracker less useful
... 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
... I think we need to add a component to the telcons for
this
PD: does Tracker support cross-group collaboration
CM: no
... the fx task force are using tracker
... you 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
... "My Tracker"
PD: one thing that concerns me is
that people in the CSS WG hadn't heard of the work Antony had
done
... and in another case a group left at TPAC because they
didn't know there was a meeting
CM: I'd imagine you have reps
from groups out in other groups reporting back
... to their group
... which is probably the way to solve this
... minute emails to the lists have a good summary of the
actions and resolutions at the top
... maybe an email with just that and a link to the full
minutes should go out to other groups lists
ED: fantasai does send out
summaries via twitter
... I think pulling out the resolutions and putting them at the
top would be an improvement
PD: we don't use resolutions enough
ED: we need to make sure we act
on them
... track them in the wiki?
CM: I think tracker has some
crude tools for resolution tracking
... I think we should be clearer about desicions and making
sure they get turned into resulutions
JW: I'm concerned we don't
remember the details of what we talk about and decide, and the
details get lost in minutes
... we should really have topic pages in the wiki where we
summarize the important details from telcons
... so 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
... or if not a summary, at least topic pages where we add
links to relevant minutes
PD: shame our wiki doesn't work very well
<general agreement>
ED: I talked to Peter Linss (css wg co-chair) after TPAC who said we might be able to share resources
PD: I'd be willing to look into
resources
... I'd like a solution that pushes out info, like to my email
box
... and provides good query tools
<agreement that PD will look into other solutions that would be agreeable to the WG>
CM: I worry that we may just swap
one set of problems for another, and take up a lot of time
switching
... and that changing wouldn't solve the problems
trackbot: end telcon
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/pint/point/ Succeeded: s/lsit/list/ Succeeded: s/someone/Peter Linss (css wg co-chair)/ Found Scribe: anthony Inferring ScribeNick: anthony Found ScribeNick: anthony Found ScribeNick: jwatt Found Scribe: Jonathan Watt Scribes: anthony, Jonathan Watt ScribeNicks: anthony, jwatt Default Present: [Microsoft], heycam, ed, anthony, jwatt Present: [Microsoft] heycam ed anthony jwatt Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0127.html Found Date: 11 Nov 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/11/11-svg-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]