20:02:28 RRSAgent has joined #svg 20:02:28 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-svg-irc 20:02:30 RRSAgent, make logs public 20:02:30 Zakim has joined #svg 20:02:32 Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG 20:02:32 ok, trackbot, I see GA_SVGWG(SVG1)4:00PM already started 20:02:33 Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference 20:02:33 Date: 16 June 2011 20:03:45 +??P14 20:03:54 Zakim, ??P14 is me 20:03:54 +ed; got it 20:04:14 Zakim, who's there? 20:04:14 I don't understand your question, ed. 20:04:41 tbah has joined #svg 20:05:13 Zakim, who's here? 20:05:13 On the phone I see ??P5, +1.206.675.aaaa, ed 20:05:14 On IRC I see tbah, Zakim, RRSAgent, cabanier, vhardy, shepazu_away, heycam, trackbot, ed 20:05:38 + +33.9.53.77.aabb 20:06:07 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2011AprJun/0151.html 20:06:57 zakim, 20:06:57 I don't understand '', tbah 20:07:14 zakim 20:07:14 ChrisL has joined #svg 20:07:34 +Doug_Schepers 20:07:38 zakim +33 is me 20:08:04 +ChrisL 20:08:22 +??P18 20:08:25 Zakim, ??P18 is me 20:08:25 +heycam; got it 20:08:58 ScribeNick: heycam 20:08:59 zakim, +33 is me 20:08:59 +tbah; got it 20:09:01 Scribe: Cameron 20:09:03 Chair: Erik 20:09:13 Topic: Seattle F2F 20:09:33 zakim, +1.206.675.aaa is me 20:09:33 +cabanier; got it 20:09:35 ED: not sure if it was mentioned in the last telcon, but just a reminder to put agenda requests on the agenda page 20:09:37 q+ 20:09:40 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/F2F/Seattle_2011 20:09:50 ... vincent filled out some more details about hotel/location 20:10:01 ... any agenda proposals should go to this page: 20:10:05 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Seattle_2011 20:10:39 VH: in the agenda you had a pointer to the registration form. is the agenda request page a page to fill out, or should we mail the mailing list? 20:10:54 CL: it's a wiki page 20:11:19 ED: just put whatever topics you want on that wiki page, and be prepared to write up a separate page for your topic before the meeting 20:11:26 CL: last night the CSSWG was looking for an extra F2F meeting 20:11:31 ... and they wanted to meet with SVG 20:11:36 ... so they've also picked Seattle 20:11:46 ... they've picked Thu/Fri/Sat 20:11:52 ... and the Thu/Fri would overlap ours 20:12:11 ... if those two days aren't entirely FX stuff, then some of us might have to split our time between the meetings 20:12:19 ... the week before/after they couldn't do, so that's the best time we could get 20:12:34 VH: what about if we decide to make the meeting be 4 days, and have the last day be overlap with CSSWG? 20:12:59 ... so just Mon-Thu for SVG WG 20:13:28 CL: it'd be a change for the CSS WG 20:13:47 VH: sorry, I suggest Thu/Fri/Sat for CSS WG, and Mon-Thu for SVG WG 20:14:18 CM: did they want particularly 2 days of overlap, or just some overlap? 20:14:41 ... tbh I think we could have 2 days of FX stuff to discuss 20:15:00 CL: but if the CSS WG meeting is 3 days, leaving only 1 day for only CSS topics would be difficult 20:15:06 ED: I don't mind a 4 day meeting, depends how much we have on the agenda 20:16:52 ACTION: Chris to respond to CSS WG to say that perhaps we will have a 4 day (Mon-Thu) meeting, or 5 if we want to have 2 days of FX topics 20:16:52 Created ACTION-3051 - Respond to CSS WG to say that perhaps we will have a 4 day (Mon-Thu) meeting, or 5 if we want to have 2 days of FX topics [on Chris Lilley - due 2011-06-23]. 20:17:03 ED: last day to put in agenda requests is 30th June 20:17:09 ... so that's 2 weeks from today 20:17:26 ... this is just to make sure me and Cameron can organise the schedule for the meeting itself 20:17:39 ... and it's good if there's enough writeups on the wiki to give some indication of how much time each topic will take 20:18:12 VH: so we propose agenda items and should we suggest how much time they will take? 20:18:37 ED: you can suggest if you like, and then we'll settle the schedule and decide times based on that 20:19:01 ... so by mid July you need to have writeups on the wiki for the more lengthy topics 20:19:13 VH: on the wiki main page there should be enough information to make your reservations 20:19:17 ... let me know if you need more information 20:19:57 CM: when is the closing date for the survey? 20:19:59 ED: 30th June 20:20:33 VH: I've asked for a room for up to 15 people 20:20:41 ... now I'm thinking that's not enough for the joint meeting with the CSS WG 20:20:49 ... 15 is plenty for SVG WG only days, yes? 20:20:50 CL: yes 20:21:03 VH: for the joint meeting, do you have an idea based on history? 30 people? 20:21:11 CL: probably 30 would be sufficient 20:21:20 ... CSS WG can be quite big, but it depends on attendance 20:21:29 DS: if it's in the US, it's likely to be pretty big 20:26:48 Topic: text layout proposal 20:26:55 http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Proposals/Text_layout 20:27:09 ED: I put a few comments on the proposal 20:27:18 ... just to point out a few things I found when reading it that wasn't fully defined 20:27:28 ... I think I agree with the whole change itself, seems good to me 20:27:36 ... might be some minor things to think a bit more about the wording and so on 20:27:57 CL: I have a few concerns/comments 20:28:32 ... you don't save anything in the implementation 20:28:41 ... there are three cases 20:28:56 ... 1, layout of text, fonts available, then you shouldn't be putting individual shifts on letters since it's not going to work 20:29:08 ... 2, laying out text, using a particular font and knowing everyone's got it 20:29:23 ... 3, the authoring application can do more precise layout, so freezing that as a bunch of glyphs 20:29:35 ... in 3 you still need a glyph collection, a dom font 20:29:47 ... you'd still need some alt text or something for accessibility, then it'd be more difficult to change that text 20:29:52 ... you couldn't have it be dynamic text 20:29:59 ... none of these are show stoppers, but these are the different use cases 20:30:09 ... so we're going more for #2 now 20:30:12 ... with woff fonts etc. 20:30:20 ... so you can probably give what people want with #2 20:31:24 CM: I think my proposal just focuses on #1 and #2 20:31:37 ... so, defining slightly differently to how the current spec says how to handle x/y/dx/dy on text 20:31:41 ... whether with a known font or not 20:32:43 ... I don't think we need to think of #1 and #2 differently 20:33:24 ... if the author has chosen a downloadable font, then x/y/dx/dy will be fine 20:33:30 ... otherwise, tough luck 20:33:31 -ed 20:33:37 ED: I think we need to address the third point 20:33:47 ... so I'd like to be able to switch easily between the two modes 20:34:07 +??P11 20:34:23 ... I don't think we have anything that does that at the moment 20:35:19 CM: so some way to specify "this is a glyph list rather than a a character list"? 20:35:20 ED: yes 20:35:30 ... maybe when multiple values are on x/y 20:35:39 RB: maybe we can have a new tag? 20:35:46 CL: I'd think so, yes 20:36:34 CM: so at the moment you can have altGlyph in text 20:36:49 VH: if you leverage altglyph, you can probably do the equivalent of glyph mapping but it would probably be very verbose 20:37:04 CM: beacuse you need to include character data in there too? 20:37:46 VH: no, if you need to do glyph selection you wouldn eed an element per glyph 20:38:03 ... can you position glyphs with altGlyph? 20:38:08 CM: you can put x/y on altGlyph 20:38:14 CL: but you can't say here's the baseline of the glyph, etc. 20:38:31 CM: wouldn't that information come from the font file? 20:38:47 CL: only if you know you've got the right font 20:38:51 CM: I think we can assume that in this case 20:39:07 RC: the font has to be available, it could be subsetted 20:39:11 ... the glyph ids need to be the same 20:39:14 s/RB/RC/ 20:39:55 CL: if you've made your font specially so they all line up nicely, then you can have a new element altGlyphList that takes a list of glyph ids 20:40:00 ... that wouldn't give you a control over positioning 20:40:10 ... if you want exact layout, then you do need one element per glyph 20:40:54 VH: we could also go down the path of having the attribute be "(glyphid x y)+" 20:41:05 CL: right, it's just a list of numbers 20:41:34 CM: we can just reuse the existing x/y attributes for position list 20:41:38 s/list/lists/ 20:42:06 CM: so we already have glyphDef 20:42:12 ... which has glyphRef children 20:42:23 ... (or maybe altGlyphDef) 20:42:29 ... so it would be just putting that information in an attribute 20:42:43 it's altGlyphDef 20:43:13 VH: let's look at some use cases and see if we can come up with a proposal in existing syntax, and a better syntax 20:44:29 ACTION: Rik to collect examples for glyph positioning and compare existing to proposed SVG syntax to handle them 20:44:29 Created ACTION-3052 - Collect examples for glyph positioning and compare existing to proposed SVG syntax to handle them [on Rik Cabanier - due 2011-06-23]. 20:46:19 TB: maybe some images on cameron's proposal wiki page would be good 20:46:41 ... also comparing existing to new behaviour 20:46:51 ED: I'd be curious to see what existing implementations would do to existing content 20:47:58 Zakim, who is making noise? 20:48:08 heycam, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P5 (95%) 20:48:10 s/existing implementations/an implementation of the proposal/ 20:48:23 Zakim, who is on the call? 20:48:23 On the phone I see ??P5, cabanier, tbah, Doug_Schepers, ChrisL, heycam, ??P11 20:48:43 Zakim, ??P11 is ed 20:48:43 +ed; got it 20:48:58 Topic: SVG1.1F2 reference corrections 20:49:06 CL: how will we generate the rec? 20:49:14 ... we could regen from the editor's version 20:49:38 ... or we could take the existing PR and rejig it to be a Rec 20:50:33 CM: doug did you have to do much to make the PR pubrules compliant? 20:50:36 DS: no, just fixing one link 20:51:06 CM: it turns out there's no reference problem to fix 20:51:50 CL: no, this isn't about glenn's comment 20:52:06 ... but I'm happy to take an action to do this 20:52:44 ACTION: Chris to fix the SVG 1.1F2 references 20:52:44 Created ACTION-3053 - Fix the SVG 1.1F2 references [on Chris Lilley - due 2011-06-23]. 20:53:10 CL: if your AC rep hasn't responded to the 1.1F2 survey, please get them to do so 20:54:41 -ChrisL 20:55:01 ED: anything else to change in the spec before publishing as a Rec? 20:55:12 CM: probably just new SotD text and maybe tweaking the text in the Changes appendix 20:55:24 +ChrisL 20:56:04 ED: when's the last day for feedback on the PR? 20:56:09 CL: july 7 20:56:18 -tbah 20:56:48 +tbah 20:57:22 Topic: Summary of FX work 20:57:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-svg-wg/2011AprJun/0025.html 20:57:40 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-svg-wg/2011AprJun/att-0025/fx-specs.html 20:58:06 CM: when's the charter work due? 20:58:11 DS: our charter was extended 20:58:19 ... we're not under particular stress about it at the moment 20:58:24 ... we just need to coordinate with CSS in a timely manner 20:58:35 CL: both are rechartering, SVG has been extended until the end of july 20:59:01 ... CSS has been out of charter for months, and we were going to send it off, but I suggested to coordinate this FX stuff first 20:59:26 ... to a certain extent we've had the situation where SVG wants to work on a joint spec, and CSS wants to do their own thing 20:59:39 ... gradients and filters 20:59:46 ... some people wanted a joint spec, others separate specs 21:00:34 VH: I took the specs listed on the FX charter page, plus the compositing work 21:00:42 ... and I've listed what I could find the relevant spec for each of those topics 21:00:59 ... my hope was that the result of the discssuion is that we'd agree on the number of specs that is common between both groups 21:01:04 ... a good one to agree on would be transforms 21:01:31 ... so maybe a way to go abotu this is in this group we could agree on which specs we think should be joint, then we can bring that information to the CSSWG or a FX telcon 21:01:51 CL: it was on the agenda for this week's CSS call, btu there were too many things on the agenda. so it's first topic for next week's call. 21:02:12 VH: if we have a position of this group of what the FXTF should be workign on, we can take that to the CSS WG next week 21:03:18 CM: let's go through each one 21:03:25 ED: 2d transforms 21:03:55 VH: on this one the current situation is the last discussion in FX or CSS, is taht the CSS WG will move along with the css2d spec, since we don't have an editor on the FX spec 21:04:15 ... dino agreed that if we found an editor for the joint FX spec, we could move forward with the FX spec and not move ahead with the CSS spec 21:04:22 ... I also asked if we shouldn't try to tackle both 2d and 3d in the same spec 21:04:26 ... so we have one spec about transforms 21:04:31 ... and which covers CSS and SVG 21:04:35 ... so instead of 4 specs we have 1 21:05:25 CM: I think the SVG WG is happy to have a joint FX spec if CSS is 21:05:39 DS: re the 2d/3d spec, we thought we'd be able to move along quicker with 2d 21:06:03 ... but if we have an editor who can get 2d/3d done in the same spec, I think the timing will be ok 21:06:59 DS: so given editing resources, we want a single spec for CSS and SVG, 2D and 3D 21:07:12 CL: I think the risk of having separate CSS/SVG specs is too high 21:07:30 ... a separate 2d spec for us doesn't give us (SVG) much 21:07:51 ... also the separation was because of current implementation level 21:08:01 DS: yeah, and we thought that we could knock out 2d because it was almost done 21:08:50 CM: are there still major open issues, or is just a matter of smashing the specs together? 21:08:57 VH: anthony had half a page of action items left to do 21:09:07 ... also there was the attribute vs property debate 21:10:14 CM: next is Animations/Transitions 21:10:20 ... I'm not sure the scope of the joint spec 21:10:27 VH: right now there are a number of issues 21:10:36 ... people are using css transitions/animations 21:10:41 ... people want to animate svg with that mechanism 21:10:48 ... so it's very relevant for the FXTF 21:10:56 ... also there's no timing and sync in css animations/transitions 21:11:03 ... no notion of time containers, or sync between animations 21:11:10 ... which SVG has with SMIL's timing/sync model 21:11:24 ... I think it would be natural that there is a consistent model for timing/sync 21:11:36 ... also there's no api around animations 21:11:40 ... dean is working on something 21:11:45 ... but it's not in a spec yet 21:11:53 ... on our end, expressed by many people, we really need an api for animations 21:12:03 ... to handle animations that are declared in css or svg/smil 21:12:48 CM: I might imagine CSS would be concerned about having a unified spec for all this 21:12:56 ... since CSS Transitions/Animations is nearly done 21:13:06 ... but this joint animation work would need a lot of work 21:14:25 CM: does CSS really want to have sync for their animations? 21:14:32 RC: yes 21:14:47 DS: from what I've been able to gather from CSS folks, there's a certain reluctance to do taht sort of thing because it's more complicated 21:14:52 ... but it's clear content creators want something like this 21:15:15 ... I wouldn't want to not provide this to authors because it's a lot of work 21:15:26 ... one other aspect of the animation thing is the media elements 21:15:32 ... people will want to sync to certain things 21:16:31 ... simon fraser said he thought doing it at this level is the wrong place, the media stuff would need to be significantly reworked because of system library support 21:16:39 ... so I know there are some challenges, I don't know the exact nature 21:16:43 ... (might have been someone else) 21:16:58 ... but I think we owe it to the community to find out the degree to which these things can be synchronised 21:17:17 ... so maybe not syncbases and shared timers, but at least events that can go between elements and animations 21:17:30 RC: i think if we have something that is easily targetted with javascript 21:17:41 ... if we have an event model, then people can do sync in JS themselves 21:17:50 DS: hooks throguh events rather than a single model 21:18:10 RC: CSS is a little bit there, but as soon as you do complex things it gets out of sync 21:18:53 VH: I discussed with dean this animation stuff 21:19:06 ... what we need is a generic model for timing and sync that is accessible in different ways 21:19:21 ... so maybe different syntax in css and svg/smil, so you might want to create/modify/delete animations from script as well 21:19:30 ... but what's needed is a common model for what timing is, how to sync up animations 21:19:45 ... so listening through script, or having declarative sync arcs in smil (or if they were added to css) 21:20:23 ... there are a lot of problems that have been tackled in smil 21:20:37 ... it does address the use case, the model for synchronising animations with audio/video 21:20:46 ... how tightly you want to sync things together 21:21:04 ... so there's definitely research there we can leverage 21:21:54 DS: I would like SVG animation to take what it started from, and develop it as an element-based animation, but not necessarily be backwards compatibile with smil 21:25:50 VH: my proposal would be to say we should find out how CSS animation applies to SVG, resolve animating SVG attributes 21:25:58 ... try putting that into the scope of the css transitions work 21:26:11 ... and say we feel we need to have a joint timing model / scripting model 21:26:19 ... but we're not sure yet where that should live yet 21:26:40 DS: I feel like CSS might not want to have the more complicated cases like timing containers 21:26:52 ... but would be find to have that as part of the element-based syntax 21:27:00 ED: I think it would be fine to have a separate SVG spec 21:27:05 ... for evolving our smil-based syntax 21:27:32 VH: I don't agree, mixing HTML/SVG and complex animation, I would want it to work equivalently well for HTML and SVG 21:27:37 DS: and consistently, using the same methods 21:30:35 VH: one effort is making CSS animations/transitions work with SVG 21:30:45 ... another is evolving animating timing / script / etc. 21:32:23 CM: so what do we say about CSS Animations and Transitions as specs? 21:32:39 DS: I think Transitions is a bit different, it can progress by itself 21:32:47 ... I think Animations is where the joint work is required 21:34:17 DS: aside, we should make sure property animations are effected in the same way (computed style) in both css and svg style animatinos 21:35:45 -ChrisL 21:35:50 continue on the mailing list 21:36:25 -ed 21:36:27 -??P5 21:36:28 -cabanier 21:36:28 -Doug_Schepers 21:36:30 -heycam 21:36:30 -tbah 21:36:30 GA_SVGWG(SVG1)4:00PM has ended 21:36:32 Attendees were +1.206.675.aaaa, ed, +33.9.53.77.aabb, Doug_Schepers, ChrisL, heycam, tbah, cabanier 21:36:34 RRSAgent, make minutes 21:36:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-svg-minutes.html heycam 22:58:39 homata has joined #svg 23:11:42 homata has joined #svg 23:13:00 homata_ has joined #svg