CSS-SVG Task Force Teleconference -- 22 Nov 2010

<trackbot> Date: 22 November 2010

<ChrisL> scribenick: ChrisL

<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2010OctDec/0060.html

public-fx-editors

ed: logs cvs changes

<ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx-editors/

ed: for entire fx taskforce area on dev.w3.org

cm: am i on?

cl: will chec
... no you weren't

task force specs

ed: see agenda, only 2d transforms is committed so far and the editors anre not here
... sounds like 2d transforms is ready to publish

<ed> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/fx/charter/

ed: charter mentions other specs too

cm: what is the status?

ds: at tpac it was clarified that css wg, being larger and with only a subset of members on the tf, publication decisions need separate ratification

cl: anything which is in scope for both charters can be worked on by agreement

ds: svg has most members on the tf so does not need separate ratification

ed: anthony, what is the expected date for publication on 2d?

ag: some changes needed before publication, and simon has an action about api comparisons
... and a way to get back the trasform value, which is not a matrix
... glazou wanted a human readable transform list
... or we could publish as is and add more stuff later

ed: is it ok to publish now

ag: needs an intro and some red bits removed, before fpwd
... minor edits then publish
... css wg was keen to move forward. just needs some cleanup here and there

cl: suggest making the edits first then making a publication decision

ag: estimate two weeks for edits, another week for examples so 3 weeks

ed: so around 13 december
... (adds as due date to wiki)
... this would be fpwd
... filters module is closer to publication. will move over to fx space then incoproprate roc proposal
... some work already to allow that to be used in css/html but needs more definition

cl: due date?

ed: aim for an editors draft around 20 december
... for the other specs I think we are waiting for dean to propose the animation model, maybe someone from microsoft also had an action

cm: on the list, moz request animation frame was brought up
... seems a reasonable fit for webapps

ds: appropriate for this group as well

cm: hmmm

ds (link to webapps discussion)

tab: point is to sync with animation

<shepazu> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0644.html

cm: not just to syn with declarative animation, also to allow purely user written animations to not hog the cpu

ds: yes it hooks into refresh rates
... its all about animation
... need to have a suitable api to make that work

cm: no preference where it goes

ds: good to have discussion in multiple places to get more feedback
... in terms of charters its in scope of svg wg charter
... but not webapps
... css has animation in scope as well, not explicitly scripting though
... can alert that list to this discussion

ed: looking forward to seeing the proposals

cm: mentioned to dino interested in helping out with unified animation model. he plans to add a wiki page

Maintenance / progress

ed: looking through tracker, we have three open issues with no actions

issue-1?

<trackbot> ISSUE-1 -- Consider not adding transformRef to Transforms spec -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/fx/track/issues/1

ed: no actions for this

ag: not on my list. did we discuss at tpac?

ed: definitely an issue, is it important or can we live without?
... need sa note in the spec that its an issue

<scribe> ACTION: anthony to add a note to 2d transforms with issue on transformRef [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/22-fx-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Add a note to 2d transforms with issue on transformRef [on Anthony Grasso - due 2010-11-29].

issue-2?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2 -- Need to figure out how transitions affect a transform on an element that has an animation running on it -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/fx/track/issues/2

simon says "I don't understand this Issue."

tab: who raised it?

ed: raised in telcon

ag: its a transitions issue
... dbaron said there wwere some bugs with transitions affecting transforms, so the transitions chapter was removed from the fx 2d spec

ed: so the issue could be closed then?

ChrisL: better to close and re-open a more specific issue that is better documented

<TabAtkins> ScribeNick: TabAtkins

cm: A metapoint - I saw Siomon's notes on this issue, and Patrick put some notes on other actions/issues, and I wonder if that's not a good use of Tracker, because it doesn't send out emails.
... Perhaps it should be the other way around - send emails to the list and have tracker pick them up automatically.

ChrisL: Agreed.

ed: Last open issue is #3, about writing mode values across CSS and SVG.

<ed> issue-3?

<trackbot> ISSUE-3 -- writing-mode values across CSS and SVG -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/fx/track/issues/3

ag: I'm not sure what this issue is about really.

TabAtkins: It's just a harmonization issue between the two versions of writing-mode.

<ChrisL> scribenick: chrisl

<TabAtkins> ag: SVG picked a bunch of writing modes a while back, and fantasai was trying to pick something out that made more sense.

ed: to agree on the set of values, not much problem for svg side

cm: seen one of the rtl in inkscape output. or was it the ttb one
... not much content that iuses it

ed: ok to drop some if that is what we decide
... can we assign an action to this, and if so what?

cl: original problem description is clear, so its just a case of doing it

ds: will raise an issue on svg2
... while grumbling

ed: pity tracker has no move or duplicate functionality

<shepazu> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2392

CSS3-UI pointer-events

<ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2010OctDec/0058.html

Publishing resolutions and WG communication

ed: we need to be careful to minute resolutions and to ensure the parent groups are well informed

cm: tantek did not seem to see the tf work as on scope

tab: the css wg is large enough that css wg is not on the radar for everyone

ds: disappointed we don't have adobe here

tab: szilles is not directly involved with css implementation. was talking with some authoring-related adobe employees. will prod them to join

ed: should ee communicate the milestone dates now, or when edits are done

cm: does tf stuff get discussed?

tab: only 2.1 stuff at the moment.

cm: worried that there is not enough communication

ChrisL: agree, but its 100% on css 2.1 at the moment

CSS3-UI pointer-events

ed: some discussion and a few issues raised
... and kevinr asked some questions too
... should css3 spec be what svg references in the future, or would it diverge?

ChrisL: copy pasting from svg 1.1 into css3 ui is a bad idea, it should normatively reference for svg-specific details

ed: there are issues raised,

<ed> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-ui

ChrisL: seems tantek accepts on issue 6, and is just waiting for a reference to use

ed: ok

<scribe> ACTION: erik to send normative links for fill and stroke [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/22-fx-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Send normative links for fill and stroke [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-11-29].

ed: can we resolve this?

resolved: css3 ui should reference svg spec for svg specifics, uris will be provided

- DRAFT -

CSS-SVG Task Force Teleconference

22 Nov 2010

Attendees

Contents

public-fx-editors

task force specs

Maintenance / progress

CSS3-UI pointer-events

Publishing resolutions and WG communication

CSS3-UI pointer-events

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output