IRC log of svg on 2012-11-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:59:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #svg
20:59:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:59:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:59:30 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
20:59:30 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see GA_SVGWG(SVG1)4:00PM already started
20:59:31 [trackbot]
Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
20:59:31 [trackbot]
Date: 15 November 2012
21:00:09 [Zakim]
21:00:21 [ed]
Zakim, [IP is me
21:00:22 [Zakim]
+ed; got it
21:00:25 [krit]
ed: If no one joins, I will scribe today. It is so much easier to just scribe yourself :P
21:00:26 [Zakim]
21:00:48 [krit]
Zakim, aaaa is me
21:00:48 [Zakim]
+krit; got it
21:01:22 [Zakim]
+ +
21:01:33 [Tav]
zakim, +33 is me
21:01:33 [Zakim]
+Tav; got it
21:01:45 [Zakim]
+ +
21:02:20 [Cyril]
zakim, aacc is me
21:02:20 [Zakim]
+Cyril; got it
21:02:35 [ed]
scribeNick: ed
21:02:40 [ed]
chair: ed
21:03:01 [ed]
Topic: FXTF meetings
21:03:32 [ed]
DS: brought it up in CSS WG
21:03:42 [ed]
... will bring it up on the mailinglist too
21:03:48 [Zakim]
21:04:12 [ed]
... not sure when the old telcon time was, but may not work for brian e.g
21:04:57 [ed]
...was same time as SVG WG telcon but on mondays
21:05:45 [ed]
ED: for me it's mostly a concern about participation and that there are workitems to discuss
21:06:21 [ed]
DS: concerns these specs: blending&composition, masks, filter effects, transforms
21:07:14 [ed]
ED: weekly telcon? bi-weekly? or based on agenda requests?
21:07:28 [ed]
DS: just one meeting soon, then based on request is fine with me
21:07:40 [ed]
... who would call in from SVGWG?
21:07:50 [ed]
nikos: i'd call in
21:07:57 [ed]
TB: me too
21:08:08 [ed]
ED: probably me too
21:08:18 [Zakim]
21:09:11 [ed]
Topic: diffusion curves
21:09:27 [ed]
Rik: needs more research
21:09:43 [ed]
DS: as I understand it the diffusion curves can do some things meshes can't
21:10:01 [ed]
nikos: right, DC are easier to author
21:10:42 [ed]
rik: are they paint servers? how does it fit in?
21:11:28 [ed]
CC: you could think of DC as a representation of what flash has
21:11:36 [ed]
rik: no, flash doesn't have DC
21:11:49 [ed]
CC: no, I meant the colors on the side of the curve
21:11:59 [ed]
... for SWF
21:12:17 [ed]
... more like gradients than fill or stroke
21:12:54 [ed]
DS: if you have a path that crosses itself, does the path gets flattened first?
21:13:05 [ed]
CC: it doesn't matter if you flatten it before or after
21:13:35 [ed]
rik: meshes have the same issues, they're also not fill or stroke
21:13:58 [ed]
DS: that means we either have DC or meshes, or both?
21:14:23 [ed]
CC: gradient meshes are things of today, DC is still at the research states, think they will solve differnt usecases
21:14:42 [ed]
TB: meshes are used in PDF, postscript etc, so useful to have
21:15:00 [ed]
... is there a software package to play with DC somewhere?
21:15:25 [ed]
CC: yes, the MS tool i posted to the mailinglist has a tool where you can play with DCs
21:15:52 [ed]
TB: thinking of this from an artists standpoint
21:16:16 [ed]
CC: yes, you have tools that take an image and convert it, you can also create from scratch
21:16:48 [Cyril]
21:17:30 [ed]
DS: do we want to resolve to not add DC to SVG2? and postpone it?
21:17:42 [ed]
TB: if we want to put it in, someone has to sign up to do the work
21:18:02 [ed]
CC: we don't need to say anything, if someone makes a proposal for it we can consider it then
21:18:15 [ed]
(all agree)
21:18:33 [ed]
Topic: extrapolated linejoin
21:18:53 [ed]
TB: would like to call it 'talon'
21:18:59 [Tav]
21:19:11 [ed]
doug: where are you getting that term?
21:19:19 [ed]
TB: because it looks like a bird claw
21:19:40 [ed]
... more unique than arc
21:19:51 [ed]
... or extrapolated join
21:20:01 [ed]
... because it describes the shape
21:21:01 [ed]
... all the other shapes have five letters, this one is also five
21:21:27 [ed]
CC: I don't know if talon is a good word, misleading in french
21:21:35 [ed]
nikos: waht does it mean in french?
21:21:42 [ed]
CC: the heel of a foot
21:22:31 [ed]
... anyway, don't have a strong opinion on naming
21:23:03 [ed]
ED: for me I think arc is more natural
21:23:07 [ed]
TB: ok
21:23:14 [ed]
Doug: take this to mailinglist
21:24:45 [ed]
topic: content model for svg2
21:25:21 [ed]
DS: do we want the svg spec to say what the content model for elements is, or do we want to remove it from the spec?
21:25:53 [ed]
... we dont' provide a DTD for SVG2 at the moment
21:26:15 [ed]
doug: was talking to mike smith and robin berjon about producing an RNG for SVG2
21:26:34 [ed]
... DTDs can't express SVG very well
21:26:48 [ed]
DS: browsers don't validate, is that just a waste of time?
21:26:57 [ed]
doug: validators validate
21:27:05 [ed]
... for ppl being able to validate svg
21:27:24 [ed]
DS: can a rect have a rect child, do we allow or disallow?
21:27:46 [ed]
doug: we talked before about having a fallback model, where if something wasn't supported it would...
21:27:54 [ed]
... so that you could fallback to another element
21:28:14 [ed]
DS: so any arbitrary element would get treated as a <g> element
21:28:23 [ed]
... is it transformable, locatable, editable?
21:28:42 [ed]
doug: i reckon it would be treated just like a <g>
21:29:00 [ed]
... all behaviours as if the arbitary element was a <g>
21:29:20 [ed]
DS: but we have elements that are not transformable for example, so why should we assume the new element is transformable?
21:29:33 [ed]
doug: haven't thought deeply about that
21:29:44 [ed]
DS: who's working on this content model?
21:29:55 [ed]
doug: I don't know anybody is
21:30:06 [ed]
DS: seems like a huge gap in the spec
21:30:25 [ed]
... what happens with elements that occur where they shouldn't be and so on
21:31:51 [Zakim]
21:32:00 [ed]
ED: we should define the model, at minimal describe what happens. it sounds as if you're asking for someone to step up and do the RNG?
21:32:42 [ed]
DS: not sure if it needs to be an RNG, but we don't describe what should happen (yet)
21:34:35 [ed]
ED: think we should get the model proposals up on the wiki or something, and then discuss at the f2f
21:36:15 [ed]
... one easy way is to take the model already defined in SVG Tiny 1.2, and backport that, then if we want to change the model do it afterwards
21:36:47 [ed]
... there was an RNG for 1.2Full but not sure what state it's in
21:37:13 [ed]
DS: would someone take an action for backporting the content model wording from 1.2T?
21:38:57 [ed]
ACTION: ed to backport content model wording from 1.2T to SVG2
21:38:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-3400 - Backport content model wording from 1.2T to SVG2 [on Erik Dahlström - due 2012-11-22].
21:40:04 [Zakim]
21:40:06 [Zakim]
21:40:07 [Zakim]
21:40:07 [Zakim]
21:40:08 [Zakim]
21:40:08 [Zakim]
GA_SVGWG(SVG1)4:00PM has ended
21:40:08 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.415.832.aaaa, [IPcaller], ed, Doug_Schepers, krit, +, Tav, +, Cyril, nikos, cabanier
21:41:24 [ed]
next week is thanksgiving and some people won't call in, let's cancel next week's call
21:41:32 [ed]
trackbot, end telcon
21:41:32 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
21:41:32 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
21:41:40 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:41:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
21:41:41 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
21:41:41 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
21:41:41 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ed to backport content model wording from 1.2T to SVG2 [1]
21:41:41 [RRSAgent]
recorded in