12:58:03 RRSAgent has joined #svg 12:58:03 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/08/14-svg-irc 12:58:05 RRSAgent, make logs public 12:58:05 Zakim has joined #svg 12:58:07 Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG 12:58:07 ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()9:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 12:58:08 Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference 12:58:08 Date: 14 August 2014 12:59:09 GA_SVGWG()9:00AM has now started 12:59:17 +??P11 12:59:32 +[IPcaller] 12:59:42 +[IPcaller.a] 12:59:43 Zakim, [ is me 12:59:44 sorry, birtles, I do not recognize a party named '[' 12:59:49 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 12:59:49 +birtles; got it 12:59:50 Zakim, [IP is me 12:59:50 +ed; got it 12:59:58 +[IPcaller] 13:00:01 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 13:00:01 +heycam; got it 13:00:42 Zakim, ??P11 is me 13:00:42 +krit; got it 13:00:52 +??P15 13:01:04 Zakim, ??P15 is me 13:01:04 +nikos_; got it 13:01:35 Zakim, mute nikos_ 13:01:35 nikos_ should now be muted 13:01:55 -nikos_ 13:02:05 +Doug_Schepers 13:02:08 +??P15 13:02:11 Zakim, ??P15 is me 13:02:11 +nikos_; got it 13:02:29 Zakim, unmute nikos_ 13:02:29 nikos_ was not muted, nikos_ 13:03:51 -nikos_ 13:04:29 chair: ed 13:04:33 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2014JulSep/0035.html 13:04:35 +??P2 13:04:51 Zakim, ??P2 13:04:51 I don't understand '??P2', nikos_ 13:04:59 Zakim, ??P2 is me 13:04:59 +nikos_; got it 13:05:11 Zakim, pick a scribe 13:05:11 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose nikos_ 13:05:28 Topic: New W3C Process document 13:05:34 Scribe: Nikos 13:05:39 scribenick: nikos_ 13:05:50 http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/ 13:05:55 Topic: New W3C Process document 13:06:05 heycam: I forwarded an email about the new process which came into effect last week 13:06:16 ... most visible change is in merging LC and CR 13:06:30 ... that change has been discussed before - it's gone ahead now 13:06:56 ... so that point is now when there is wider review of spec and when we ask for implementations 13:07:00 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2014JulSep/0057.html 13:07:08 heycam: here is another mail that has links to summaries of the changes 13:07:27 ... also points out importantly that we have the option of publishing new versions of existing documents under this process if we want to 13:07:30 ... for the next 2 years 13:07:53 ... we can continue to publish works in progress under the old process if we want during that time 13:08:01 ... it shouldn't affect us too much 13:08:36 krit: I'd suggest we use the new proces s with new publications that we plan 13:09:21 shepazu: to me, it's a a slightly more realistic process doc. CR was a period of time when you had to wait a month before going on - at least 13:09:39 ... so people were sitting around in CR waiting for the time period to finish or they skipped CR 13:10:08 ... now we skip a period of bureaucracy, so things should happen faster 13:10:21 krit: on that note, CSS Masking has been CR for 1.5 months and is still not published 13:10:56 krit: Chris is taking care of it, but because of publication moratoriums, etc it hasn't happened yet 13:11:02 shepazu: I wasn't aware of that 13:11:14 ... Could you send me the details and I'll try to care care of it? 13:11:27 ... although I'm not staff contact 13:11:54 krit: to come back to the process, I think there's no objection here 13:12:07 shepazu: one other thing 13:12:15 ... with accessibility TF 13:12:51 Topic: Accessibility TF 13:13:06 shepazu: there was a contradiction in the work statement 13:13:29 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/svg-a11y-tf/work-statement 13:13:31  13:14:06 shepazu: in one place it says the SVG 2 to accessibility mapping guide will be considered a publication of the PFWG 13:14:20 ... then down below it says the following documents are managed jointly, and that doc is included there 13:14:35 ... so unlike FX the work statement says it's joint work but it's only published by PF 13:14:47 ... we pushed back on that 13:15:06 ... I want to confirm that we want jointly published deliverables? 13:15:17 heycam: I think that's the conclusion we came to last time we discussed this 13:15:30 shepazu: anyone disagree with joint publication? 13:15:37 13:15:59 RESOLUTION: Joint deliverables from task forces shall be published by both working groups 13:16:41 Topic: New W3C Process document (continued) 13:16:57 ed: do we need resolution regarding which process we publish under? 13:17:30 RESOLUTION: New documents, including new revisions of working drafts, will be published under the new W3C publication process 13:17:40 Topic: Polyfill for new SVG DOM proposal 13:17:53 heycam: last time we discussed the new DOM stuff was in Germany 13:18:05 ... the result was that a couple of people were still unsure 13:18:14 ... the idea of a polyfill was raised 13:18:18 ... to let us try the new API 13:18:26 ... to help bring us to a conclusion 13:18:37 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2014Aug/0008.html 13:18:44 ... I've sent this mail linking to the polyfill 13:18:54 ... it's a javascript file 13:18:58 ... which runs in FF only 13:19:08 ... because it uses features which aren't available everywhere yet 13:19:23 ... but doesn't matter as it's only intended for us and others interested in design of the dom 13:19:33 http://heycam.github.io/new-svg-dom/examples/ 13:19:33 ... not for general public to use 13:19:37 ... here's some examples 13:19:54 ... if you are running FF nightly with web components enabled in about:config 13:19:59 ... then those should work 13:20:11 ... please try examples and look at source 13:20:19 ... I've pointed out the different approaches in the examples 13:20:26 ... and we'll have a broader discussion at the F2F 13:20:44 ... we can play with it live during the F2F to get a feel for it 13:21:07 ... I just wanted to draw your attention 13:21:58 krit: I've heard it mentioned that it might be better to use properties instead of getters and setters 13:22:45 ... having something that returns pixel in all cases would be great 13:23:08 shepazu: do you use chaining? 13:23:20 heycam: I haven't introduced a big suite of new methods for constructing methods or anything like that 13:23:37 ... the one situation where I could have added chaining was a method to set list of points for a js array 13:23:40 ... or a list of path segments 13:23:47 ... they could return the same object back again 13:23:58 ... if that's a pattern thats becoming popular I don't mind that 13:24:06 krit: one example is that we should not have element.getBBox() 13:24:09 ... but a bbox property 13:24:22 13:24:48 krit: that's just some general feedback I got, not necessarily my opinion 13:25:46 were we going to try and get input from Hixie before the F2F? or was that more related to mixing SVG and HTML elements? 13:26:04 heycam: at last discussion from Germany, the sticking point wasn't the details 13:26:11 ... but the broad question of whether we should do this at all 13:26:44 ... so I'd like to solve the question of whether we go ahead 13:26:58 ... I haven't gotten input from hixie or anyone else yet 13:27:14 ... I think the proposal needs some changes - we probably need others agreements regarding ns changes 13:27:33 ... maybe not important to get that feedback before we decided whether to push forward or not 13:27:57 ... if we do go forward then I'll correspond 13:28:28 ... if there are specific parts that I haven't implemented yet, but you'd like me to implement or you'd like specific examples, then let me know 13:28:33 krit: was transforms part of the proposal? 13:28:40 heycam: yes, but I haven't done an example for that 13:28:52 ... I have implemented the thing where you have a get and set method to return an array of dictionary like things 13:28:59 ... that have type and arguments from the objects 13:29:03 ... instead of SVG transform list stufff 13:29:08 s/stufff/stuff 13:29:22 ... I can make an example if you'd like 13:29:25 krit: yeh sure 13:29:45 ed: in the proposal do we have support for making your own objects and dictionaries and passing them into the SVG DOM? 13:30:00 ... does that work or do you have to create custom SVG point or whatever? 13:30:04 heycam: I haven't looked at that part of it 13:30:10 ... the original proposal didn't look at those methods 13:30:15 ... that take SVGPoint or SVGMatrix 13:30:21 ... so polyfill doesn't look at that yet 13:30:29 ... we should look at that in the context of the geometry spec 13:30:51 ... for the get and set method for points attribute on polygon and polyline, they take an array of dictionary like objects 13:30:57 krit: for length values 13:31:32 ... did you spend time to look if it could be implemented more efficiently than with get and set attributes? 13:31:56 heycam: I didn't look, but for us, assigning to an object with a type string should be the same as calling a method 13:37:54 Topic: Using units and percentages with path 13:38:03 shepazu: is there a good reason not to do this? 13:38:19 heycam: it would cause problems for the SVG DOM methods 13:38:48 heycam: the reasons for not doing it are not very good though 13:38:59 ed: this could be implemented as a polyfill maybe? 13:39:02 shepazu: yes 13:39:14 krit: for relative segments, what does percentage mean? 13:39:20 ... percentage of viewport? 13:39:24 shepazu: that's something we'd have to resolve 13:39:38 ed: the polyfill would let us identify questions like this 13:39:56 shepazu: do people think this would be a good idea? 13:40:08 krit: we discussed in Switzerland and decided it would be a good idea 13:40:36 krit: to have these units for path segments would be interesting 13:40:48 ... I think there's some problems to solve, but in general I think this would be a good move 13:41:11 shepazu: from an editor point of view, an SVG loaded that used this stuff would not work 13:41:24 krit: if you assume we don't update our products 13:41:35 ... the question is more how can tools make use during export rather than import 13:41:37 ... that's tricky 13:42:00 ... path segment is intuitive when hand editing, but not with tools 13:42:31 ... tools tend to just export with basic path commands 13:42:51 shepazu: a lot of content comes from script now 13:43:07 heycam: what do you think about digging up the minutes and rehashing at the next F2F? 13:43:13 shepazu: I can do that 13:44:05 ACTION: Doug to summarise what was discussed at Switzerland F2F regarding units and percentage values in path commands 13:44:06 Created ACTION-3637 - Summarise what was discussed at switzerland f2f regarding units and percentage values in path commands [on Doug Schepers - due 2014-08-21]. 13:48:46 -ed 13:48:48 -heycam 13:48:49 -Doug_Schepers 13:48:50 -krit 13:48:50 -birtles 13:49:01 Zakim, end telcon 13:49:01 I don't understand 'end telcon', ed 13:49:05 -nikos_ 13:49:06 GA_SVGWG()9:00AM has ended 13:49:06 Attendees were birtles, ed, heycam, krit, nikos_, Doug_Schepers 13:49:06 trackbot, end telcon 13:49:06 Zakim, list attendees 13:49:07 sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is 13:49:13 RRSAgent, make minutes 13:49:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/08/14-svg-minutes.html nikos_ 13:49:14 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 13:49:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/08/14-svg-minutes.html trackbot 13:49:15 RRSAgent, bye 13:49:15 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/14-svg-actions.rdf : 13:49:15 ACTION: Doug to summarise what was discussed at Switzerland F2F regarding units and percentage values in path commands [1] 13:49:15 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/14-svg-irc#T13-44-05