SVG Working Group Teleconference -- 18 Nov 2010

<trackbot> Date: 18 November 2010

<tbah> Pass code?

<tbah> Hmm, that didn't work. I'll try again.

<scribe> Scribe: Anthony

<scribe> ScribeNick: anthony

SVG 1.1 Issues and Actions

<ed> ISSUE-2332?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2332 -- Last Call Comment: regarding Text layout -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2332

ED: Regarding text layout
... raised by Alex in regard to later version of the spec
... Tav you investigated the issue

TB: Yes, did I make some suggestions?

ED: Yes you did. Problem is Alex thought they would raise other issues
... so he felt that it was best left for SVG 2 then
... My concern is getting SVG F1.1 finished
... so I don't mind moving it to SVG 2
... any objections?

AG: None heard

<ChrisL> issue-2332?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2332 -- Last Call Comment: regarding Text layout -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2332

RESOLUTION: We will move this issue to SVG 2

ISSUE-2335?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2335 -- Last Call Comment: Clarify feConvolveMatrix bias property -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2335

AG: Just want to try out the formula for option 2 and compare it with the results in the specification

ED: Will require some test to be written

ISSUE-2346?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2346 -- Last Call Comment: previous discussion about filterRes -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2346

ED: No action assigned to it
... does Inkscape handle filterRes?

TB: No

ED: Opera does, but my guess is it is not very clearly defined what it means

<scribe> ACTION: Erik to Investigate ISSUE-2346 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-svg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2908 - Investigate ISSUE-2346 [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-11-25].

ISSUE-2351?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2351 -- Last Call Comment: Clarify that units are required on <length>s in style attribute; fix examples in text. -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2351

ED: Can we mark this as resolved or is there anymore actions to be done?

TB: I recommended text changes for this one

CL: I thought we had made some changes
... we clarified the style sheets, for example you could omit the unit
... I think people are confused is because they are looking at style attributes

ED: There is nothing linked to the issue
... just wondering if that edit was made and not updated

TB: I suggested some changes in July

<tbah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010JulSep/0042.html

TB: with some example changes

CL: It wouldn't surprise me if those examples are wrong

TB: It wasn't the SVG file that was a problem
... it was the text
... in Section 7.10

<ed> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/master/coords.html

<ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010JulSep/0043.html

CL: I'm editing this one in place

<ChrisL> <text font-size="50">Text size is 50 user units</text>

ED: Pointed out some minor issues

CL: I've changed it to use the font-size property
... I changed it to be a presentation attribute

TB: That's what I suggested it to be
... Aside from that, I did suggest some other changes
... to the text

ED: Chris are you doing those edits as well?

CL: Just trying to see where the edits are
... there are really 3 cases and not 2

<ChrisL> For properties defined in CSS2 [CSS2], an angle unit identifier must be provided. For angle values in SVG-specific properties and their corresponding presentation attributes, the angle unit identifier is optional.

CL: That what is says currently

TB: The problem is to get to that place
... you have to go through a bunch of steps
... which is very confusing
... the suggested text changes I had were to clarify that

CL: Ok I see

TB: I'd be happy to edit the spec, but I don't have CVS access

<ChrisL> I will fix that

<scribe> ACTION: Tav to Make suggested edits to the specification that address ISSUE-2351 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-svg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2909 - Make suggested edits to the specification that address ISSUE-2351 [on Tavmjong Bah - due 2010-11-25].

ED: Any more actions

CL: Yes there a few things that Helder metioned
... I've started addressing those
... In some cases he's made suggestions for the changes
... and we can use what he's suggested

<scribe> ACTION: Chris to Cleanup changes appendix for SVG Full 1.1 2nd Edition [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-svg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2910 - Cleanup changes appendix for SVG Full 1.1 2nd Edition [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-11-25].

CL: Also given an action to port some stuff over from SVG TIny 1.2
... on intrinsic dimensions
... had to port across some definitions as well
... which the new text referenced
... I've closed the action off just before the call

ED: Was there a last call issue?

CL: No, the CSS working group were looking at it and David Baron thought there was good text in SVG 1.2 Tiny

<ed> ACTION-2815?

<trackbot> ACTION-2815 -- Patrick Dengler to draft a complete response to ISSUE-2338 and research the answers to the questions asked -- due 2010-07-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2815

ED: I saw Patrick has almost completed ACTION-2815

<ChrisL> that was ACTION-2896: Copy the Intrinsic sizing wording in Tiny 1.2 to Full 1.1 2nd Edition by the way

ED: I think the answer looks mostly complete
... one minor thing that wasn't quite clear
... Tav can you try to clear that up?

TB: Ok

<scribe> ACTION: Tav to Finish the response to Dr Olaf regarding ISSUE-2815 and fix the issues highlighted by Dr Olaf [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-svg-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2911 - Finish the response to Dr Olaf regarding ISSUE-2815 and fix the issues highlighted by Dr Olaf [on Tavmjong Bah - due 2010-11-25].

ED: Was actually ISSUE-2338
... Ok I have a few issues

<ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0158.html

ED: the first one was clarify paced animations
... it will just be porting wording from the Tiny 1.2 specification

CL: Ok looks good

<ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0155.html

ED: The other one is defining clip-path
... quite minor edit
... saying again if you put a clip-path property on a clip-path element then there is an effect

CL: Ok

<scribe> ACTION: Erik to clarify paced animations in SVG Full 1.1 by adding wording from SVG Tiny 1.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-svg-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2912 - Clarify paced animations in SVG Full 1.1 by adding wording from SVG Tiny 1.2 [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-11-25].

<scribe> ACTION: Erik to Clarify that the clip-path property has an effect on the clipPath element [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-svg-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2913 - Clarify that the clip-path property has an effect on the clipPath element [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-11-25].

Test Suite

ED: One of the first things is to clear up the confusion on the WOFF thing

CL: I think there is some confusion that Microsoft wanted to make WOFF mandatory
... The idea is to add WOFF as a fall back
... I'm part way through that
... What I did find though it helped with I.E. 9
... but It didn't work with Firefox
... WOFF is required to read from the same origin
... so in a local file system having /../ is not allowed
... which means we will need to put the font in a sub directory in the test suite files directory with the WOFF files
... will this break any of the scripts?

AG: Should be ok, as long as it is the last thing that gets done

ED: We also use a packaging script to package all the directories up into a single archive

RESOLUTION: For tests that use SVG fonts as part of the test we will add WOFF fall back fonts in addition to the SVG fonts

<ed> styling-css-06-b.svg

ED: I don't think the test should be dropped
... if anything we should have more tests for active and focus
... as this test is limited

CL: Well we didn't originally have a test for it at all

ED: I haven't tested this in Safari or Chrome

CL: It passes in Opera

ED: Ok so Safari doesn't seem to do the stroking it does do the underline
... not sure why that is
... might be because it's been selected
... apart from that, I think Safari is passing everything except that point with the particular stroke
... not sure what the cause is
... seems to be doing the same style rule and they should both apply at the same time

CL: I don't see anything wrong with the test
... and I see specific wording in the SVG spec

ED: It's close to being passed by more than one implementation
... I mean it is applying the correct style rule

CL: I'm sort of tempted to leave it because it encourages them to fix their bug

<ChrisL> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/text.html#TextSelection

CL: found the wording
... section 6.7
... in the old version

<ChrisL> CSS2's dynamic pseudo-classes :hover, :active and :focus and pseudo-classes :first-child, :visited, :link and :lang ([CSS2], section 5.11). The remaining CSS2 pseudo-classes, including those having to do with generated content ([CSS2], chapter 12), are not part of the SVG language definition. (Note: an SVG element gains focus when it is selected. See Text selection.)

<ChrisL> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/styling.html#StylingWithCSS

AG: Just wondering if we should change the wording

<scribe> ACTION: Chris to Remove the "Note:" in section 6.7 in the specification regarding style events on text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-svg-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2914 - Remove the "Note:" in section 6.7 in the specification regarding style events on text [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-11-25].

<ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0072.html

Opacity on mask elements

ED: Email is about whether opacity and mask elements have some sort of effect
... I think that most implementations apply an opacity on a mask element
... the test on the email show that Firefox, Opera and Safari
... render the square red
... meaning there is no effect from the opacity
... I think Patrik was asking this to be clarified
... first of all is that the behaviour that we want

TB: Inkscape is doing the same thing as firefox
... one red square, two green

AG: when you mask something you're clipping it

ED: Yes

AG: So doesn't really make sense to have an opacity on a mask

ED: I think adding some wording to say that opacity doesn't apply to mask elements is a good clarification to make

AG: Where would you add that?

ED: The mask property lists that it applies to container elements
... and that it is a container element

<ed> 'opacity' property -> Applies to: graphics elements and container elements (except for the <mask> element)

ED: The alternative thing to do would be remove mask elements from container elements
... Another possible change would be list all the general elements, but that wouldn't be very pretty

CL: Could even add a sentence to say that if the mask element is not directly rendered the opacity has no effect
... Might be worth explaining in the specification why that is

<scribe> ACTION: Erik to Clarify that opacity does no apply to mask [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-svg-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2915 - Clarify that opacity does no apply to mask [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-11-25].

trackbot, end telcon

- DRAFT -

SVG Working Group Teleconference

18 Nov 2010

Attendees

Contents

SVG 1.1 Issues and Actions

Test Suite

Opacity on mask elements

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output