20:28:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #svg
20:28:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/26-svg-irc
20:28:07 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
20:28:08 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #svg
20:28:09 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
20:28:09 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()4:30PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
20:28:10 <trackbot> Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
20:28:11 <trackbot> Date: 26 March 2015
20:29:50 <Zakim> GA_SVGWG()4:30PM has now started
20:29:57 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
20:29:59 <heycam> Zakim, [ is me
20:29:59 <Zakim> +heycam; got it
20:30:08 <heycam> Chair: Cameron
20:30:14 <heycam> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2015Mar/0120.html
20:31:26 <Zakim> +??P2
20:31:32 <nikos> Zakim, ??P2 is me
20:31:32 <Zakim> +nikos; got it
20:32:03 <Zakim> +Doug_Schepers
20:32:22 <shepazu> q+
20:32:23 <Zakim> +??P3
20:32:31 <stakagi> zakim, ??P3 is me
20:32:31 <Zakim> +stakagi; got it
20:32:41 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
20:33:12 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
20:33:20 <ed> Zakim, [IP is me
20:33:20 <Zakim> +ed; got it
20:33:32 <heycam> Zakim, who is on the call?
20:33:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see heycam, nikos, Doug_Schepers, stakagi, birtles, ed
20:33:59 <Zakim> +??P6
20:34:13 <AmeliaBR> AmeliaBR has joined #svg
20:34:41 <heycam> Regrets: Dirk
20:34:53 <Zakim> -??P6
20:34:56 <heycam> Zakim, pick a scribe?
20:34:56 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, heycam.
20:34:58 <heycam> Zakim, pick a scribe
20:34:58 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Doug_Schepers
20:35:07 <Zakim> +??P7
20:35:15 <heycam> Zakim, pick a scribe
20:35:15 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose heycam
20:35:22 <heycam> Zakim, pick a scribe
20:35:22 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ??P7
20:35:24 <heycam> Zakim, pick a scribe
20:35:24 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose nikos
20:35:27 <AmeliaBR> zakim, ??P7 is me
20:35:27 <Zakim> +AmeliaBR; got it
20:35:53 <nikos> scribenick: nikos
20:35:55 <nikos> Scribe: Nikos
20:36:04 <Zakim> +??P6
20:36:06 <nikos> Topic: Declarative animation
20:36:12 <Tav> Zakim, ??P6 is me
20:36:12 <Zakim> +Tav; got it
20:36:39 <nikos> shepazu: the general topic is svg declarative animation in the image element
20:36:46 <nikos> ... the svg integration spec says that this should be allowed
20:37:02 <nikos> ... implementations that support declarative animation and svg in the image tag support this
20:37:08 <nikos> ... that's timeline based stuff
20:37:15 <nikos> ... it does not allow interactivity
20:37:21 <nikos> ... neither the spec nor the browsers allow that
20:37:41 <nikos> ... David Dailey made the case that this is limiting how useful svg could be
20:37:46 <nikos> ... I drew up some short use cases
20:37:49 <nikos> ... on the mailing list
20:37:54 <nikos> ... I agree that this would be useful
20:38:11 <AmeliaBR> q+
20:38:13 <nikos> ... Daniel Holbert (Mozilla) has said this might be an interesting idea to support
20:38:26 <heycam> ack shepazu
20:38:28 <nikos> ... even if you don't support SMIL you might support CSS animation or other interactive things like navigating links or hover effects
20:38:38 <heycam> ack AmeliaBR
20:38:39 <nikos> ... I'm wondering what you all think - is this a good or bad idea?
20:39:02 <nikos> AmeliaBR: one important thing - this is coming out because people are annoyed that social media won't let them post interactive objects
20:39:10 <nikos> ... the only option everyday users have is via images
20:39:18 <nikos> ... when it comes to svg theres a couple of things
20:39:25 <nikos> ... lots of social media don't support svg at all
20:39:46 <nikos> ... I think as the first step we should be trying to convince people that it's safe to allow svg as an image type
20:40:22 <nikos> ... and I'm concerned that if we make svg images less like other images (e.g more powerful) that may scare of svg for support as an image format
20:40:41 <nikos> ... for timeline based animation it's easy to liken svg to animated gifs
20:40:48 <nikos> ... the other thing to think about is there's already embedded objects
20:41:00 <nikos> ... there is a means of embedding fully interactive svg
20:41:23 <nikos> ... this isn't applicaable to social media sites currently
20:41:34 <nikos> ... so not sure what the benefit of making svg as an image a duplicate of svg as an object
20:41:48 <nikos> shepazu: think there's a lot of value in your comment about trying to achieve parity first
20:42:00 <nikos> ... if we want people to see that this is as secure as a gif
20:42:42 <nikos> ... it's useful to be able to show that
20:42:55 <richardschwerdtfeger> richardschwerdtfeger has joined #svg
20:42:57 <nikos> ... but if it's only as good as those  things (e.g. gifs) but no better, then why bother
20:43:47 <nikos> ... with the capabilities of existing image formats, the costs seem relatively small but the benefits seem relatively small
20:44:00 <nikos> ... second point you made - why allow this in an image as opposed to an iframe or whatever
20:44:03 <nikos> ... in an iframe, anything goes
20:44:08 <nikos> ... it's not secure
20:44:19 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:44:28 <nikos> ... having a declarative way of having simple interactions is secure
20:44:34 <ed> so, how much of this does Content Security Policy + CORS address?
20:44:39 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #svg
20:45:08 <nikos> nikos: has there ever been discussion on allowing more fine grained control of what is allowed on the object element?
20:45:16 <nikos> heycam: iframe has a sandbox feature
20:45:25 <nikos> ... don't think it's implemented anywhere at the moment
20:45:26 <Rossen> Rossen has joined #svg
20:45:31 <nikos> ... might be a good solution for this though
20:45:49 <nikos> ... could allow interactive svg with the sandbox attribute
20:46:07 <nikos> ... but what happens on a browser that doesn't implement the sandbox attribute? anything would be allowed.
20:46:50 <Zakim> -nikos
20:47:06 <Zakim> +??P2
20:47:08 <nikos> Zakim, ??P2 is me
20:47:08 <Zakim> +nikos; got it
20:48:28 <nikos> Rossen: we've been looking at different solutions. One of the solutions that Chrome was going after - SMIL implemented as JS
20:48:32 <nikos> ... appears to be palatable to us
20:48:42 <nikos> ... but can't add to the current discussion more than that at the moment
20:50:21 <nikos> shepazu: maybe a good first step would be for me to make some tests?
20:50:47 <nikos> ... the question of animation is orthogonal to the question of interactivity
20:51:27 <nikos> heycam: We have a layer in which we handle svg as images - the part of Gecko that also deals with raster images
20:51:41 <nikos> ... whenever you have an svg doc as an image then there's a single document running behind the scenes that we request to paint
20:51:51 <nikos> ... if we have multiple uses of the one document the timelines are synchronised
20:51:58 <nikos> ... because there's only really one document running
20:52:09 <nikos> ... if we were to support interaction the documents would need to diverge
20:53:16 <nikos> Rossen: In IE all the resources will be re-used but the animations will run separately
20:54:01 <nikos> shepazu: another related question - in Gecko, does the SVG image actually have a DOM?
20:54:07 <nikos> heycam: internally we do
20:54:09 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #svg
20:54:22 <nikos> ... don't have the facility to play animations without having the dom there
20:54:35 <nikos> birtles: we support event based animations on svg in an image
20:54:40 <nikos> ... with a white list of events that are allowed
20:54:44 <nikos> ... begin, end and repeat
20:54:48 <nikos> ... internal events
20:55:12 <nikos> ed: Would people ask for the same level of interaction for background images?
20:55:22 <nikos> shepazu: I think that would be disruptive - but others said why not
20:55:28 <nikos> ... personally I'm not in favour
20:55:41 <nikos> ... but I can see if someone wants to insert an icon in CSS, they might want hover effects
20:55:45 <nikos> ... so I can see the use case
20:56:03 <nikos> ed: Was also wondering how much of the concerns raised here are addressed by the content security policy and CORS?
20:56:12 <nikos> ... with CSP you can prevent certain resources from loading
20:57:07 <nikos> shepazu: I agree that CSP is probably the right way of handling that
20:58:01 <nikos> ... if you're interested in this topic - I'd like to see more discussion on the mailing list
20:58:10 <nikos> ... so we can work towards a solution
20:58:22 <nikos> AmeliaBR: we should get feedback on the implementability of this
20:58:31 <nikos> ... whether there's problems passing events through to the image document
20:58:35 <nikos> ... maybe talk to the HTML guys
20:58:48 <Zakim> -Doug_Schepers
20:59:02 <Zakim> -nikos
20:59:15 <Zakim> +??P1
20:59:23 <nikos> Zakim, ??P1 is me
20:59:23 <Zakim> +nikos; got it
20:59:36 <nikos> Topic: SVG 2 open issue discussion
20:59:46 <nikos> heycam: last time we finished which chapter?
21:00:47 <nikos> Rossen: co-ords and transforms I think
21:00:53 <nikos> ... two issues still to be discussed
21:01:00 <nikos> ... haven't seen any discussion on the mailing list
21:01:21 <nikos> ... issue 10 and issue 20
21:01:28 <nikos> ... Bogdan will create test cases for 10
21:01:42 <nikos> ... there was also supposed to be discussion on the mailing list but I haven't seen that
21:02:02 <nikos> heycam: it looks like those two are waiting on initiation of the discussion or some work
21:02:07 <nikos> ... so probably don't need discussion right now
21:02:39 <AmeliaBR> https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG2_Chapter_Assessment
21:03:21 <nikos> heycam: I recall we discussed some of the issues in the styling chapter
21:03:34 <nikos> ... in the types chapter - those issues are also waiting on some testing or some work
21:04:04 <nikos> ... we've done paths and basic shapes
21:04:19 <nikos> ... I think there are some issues in text that we haven't discussed?
21:04:26 <nikos> Tav: think we discussed most of them
21:04:47 <nikos> ... might be a few that I need to look at before we discuss
21:05:06 <nikos> ... not ready to discuss any now
21:05:25 <nikos> heycam: Erik, there's two on the interactivity chapter - can we discuss those?
21:05:25 <heycam> Zakim, who is making noise?
21:05:36 <nikos> Topic: Interactivity chapter issue 5
21:05:45 <Zakim> heycam, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
21:05:55 <ed> https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/interact.html#issue5
21:05:59 <heycam> Zakim, no wonder you are being decommissioned
21:05:59 <Zakim> I don't understand 'no wonder you are being decommissioned', heycam
21:06:22 <nikos> ed: resize, scroll and zoom are defined as applying at the documnet level
21:06:31 <nikos> ... there were some comments that resize should apply on each svg fragment
21:06:34 <nikos> ... but they're not defined that way
21:06:47 <nikos> ... I'd like to clarify the term 'document view'
21:06:59 <nikos> ... link to whichever spec defines the resize and scroll events
21:07:04 <nikos> ... that term is already used there
21:07:16 <nikos> heycam: I would hope we don't need to say much at all
21:07:19 <nikos> ... about resize and scroll
21:07:36 <nikos> ... is scroll a bit different because we dispatch that when the current pan and zoom values change?
21:07:48 <nikos> Rossen: how would you expect this to differ from html content?
21:07:50 <nikos> ... or would you?
21:07:56 <nikos> ed: I wouldn't expect it to differ
21:08:01 <nikos> ... resize and scroll should be the same
21:08:04 <nikos> ... zoom is unique to svg
21:08:12 <nikos> ... we have some room if we want to do something special there
21:08:17 <nikos> ... but svg zoom isn't implemented that well anyway
21:08:25 <nikos> Rossen: wouldn't svg zoom map to css zoom?
21:08:32 <nikos> ed: dont' think it does currently - but perhaps it could
21:08:36 <nikos> Rossen: I would expect it to map
21:08:46 <nikos> ... not that css zoom is currently specced but everyone is implementing
21:09:23 <nikos> ... it's an action item on Nat Rako (sp?) on my team who is going to write a spec about all things zoom related
21:09:31 <nikos> ... alongside device pixel ratio
21:09:38 <nikos> ... don't know when that spec will happen
21:09:45 <nikos> ... as a result I can spearhead at least the css zoom property
21:09:51 <nikos> ... which should map fairly well with svg zoom
21:09:57 <nikos> ... so svg shouldn't do anything special
21:10:17 <nikos> heycam: svg zoom is the only even that we didn't have something from the existing dom spec to rename it to
21:10:25 <nikos> ... initiall these were all 'svg load', 'svg scroll', etc
21:10:32 <nikos> ... if there's a zoom thing we can change it to that would be really good
21:10:46 <nikos> ... suprised if people are expecting dot type to be svg zoom rather than just zoom
21:11:00 <nikos> ed: there's a special zoom event interface in the svg spec
21:11:05 <nikos> ... not sure it's implemented anywhere
21:11:23 <nikos> Rossen: easiest way to find out if people depend on it is to try to kill it and see if anyone complains
21:11:31 <nikos> heycam: I know I've done content that depends on svg zoom
21:11:41 <ed> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/script.html#InterfaceSVGZoomEvent
21:11:52 <nikos> ... but in these days of of not everyone supporting native zoom and pan gestures, I'm not sure if people are doing that these days
21:12:01 <ed> https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/script.html#InterfaceSVGZoomEvent
21:12:19 <nikos> heycam: Rossen, could you ask Matt for the recent summaries of what the zoom event looks like?
21:12:32 <nikos> ... so we can make a decision on how closely it matches svg zoom?
21:12:36 <nikos> Rossen: yes
21:13:11 <nikos> ... going back to the open issue - which is about zoom as well as scroll and resize
21:13:20 <nikos> ... I wouldn't expect scroll and resize to be different than html
21:13:39 <nikos> heycam: the scroll event - we have this wording that says 'when the current translate property on the root svg element changes then a dscrool event is dispatched'
21:13:47 <nikos> ... that would be in addition to the root element being scrollable
21:13:52 <nikos> ... that wouldn't be defined in the dom spec
21:13:55 <nikos> ... it's svg specific
21:14:09 <nikos> ... but we can say in our spec that this is the same event that we dispatch for
21:14:15 <nikos> Rossen: would be more comfortable with that
21:14:29 <nikos> ... introducing an entire event for one small difference is too much
21:14:35 <nikos> s/dscrool/scroll
21:14:40 <Zakim> -nikos
21:14:50 <nikos> heycam: we already replaced all except zoom with the standard
21:14:57 <Zakim> +??P1
21:14:59 <nikos> Zakim, ??P1 is me
21:14:59 <Zakim> +nikos; got it
21:15:33 <nikos> heycam: in terms of this specific issue, it seems like it's just a matter of finding the right terms to link to?
21:15:55 <nikos> ed: I'm fine doing edits for scroll and resize, thats we'll defined
21:16:04 <nikos> ... for zoom I don't mind waiting until we have another spec to reference
21:16:14 <nikos> heycam: I agree it's probably not critical
21:16:36 <nikos> ed: what are people comfortable with - taking out zoom or leaving it in?
21:16:39 <nikos> heycam: think it should be left in
21:16:53 <nikos> AmeliaBR: we could add a more specific issue saying we need to follow up with css zoom
21:17:10 <nikos> heycam: how about we wait for the info from Rossen about the event
21:17:17 <nikos> ... and see if we can make a quick decision then
21:17:27 <ed> s/we'll defined/well defined
21:17:40 <nikos> ... if all implementations match then it will be specced that way so it's probably safe to refer to that
21:18:06 <nikos> Rossen: if this was the last issue holding back the spec from CR would you hold the spec for that issue?
21:18:13 <nikos> heycam: if you said you were going to come back in a week then probably
21:18:17 <nikos> ... otherwise not
21:18:23 <nikos> Rossen: I don't think this issue merits that much attention
21:18:31 <nikos> ... but will follow your lead
21:19:12 <nikos> ed: I have enough information to resolve the issue for scroll and resize
21:19:23 <nikos> Rossen: let's just repurpose the issue for zoom only then
21:19:34 <nikos> heycam: to clarify, you'll do some rewording and pointing to another spec right?
21:19:40 <nikos> ... document view is completely undefined at the moment
21:19:41 <nikos> ed: yes
21:20:04 <heycam> Zakim, who is on the call?
21:20:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see heycam, stakagi, birtles, ed, AmeliaBR, Tav, [Microsoft], nikos
21:20:26 <AmeliaBR> https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/interact.html#issue4
21:21:03 <nikos> Topic: Interactivity chapter Issue 4 - Focus management
21:21:09 <nikos> AmeliaBR: looks like text was copied from HTMl
21:21:19 <nikos> ... issue is whether we need to refine it to make it SVG specific
21:21:28 <nikos> heycam: do we need to have copied this into the spec?
21:21:39 <nikos> ... or can we point directly to HTML for the definition of focusable and focusing and unfocusing steps
21:21:46 <nikos> ... if it's identical we don't need duplicate text
21:21:47 <nikos> ed: agree
21:22:05 <nikos> AmeliaBR: agree we shouldn't be copying text but we might need svg specific clarification on elements being rendered
21:22:13 <nikos> ... has come up in svg-a11y TF
21:22:38 <nikos> ... it's implicit that certain elements are rendered to the screen and others aren't
21:22:47 <nikos> ... but needs to be a clearer definition of what that means
21:22:57 <nikos> heycam: are you familiar with the parts of the html spec that talk about focus?
21:22:58 <nikos> AmeliaBR: no
21:23:17 <nikos> heycam: if Rich is not here, maybe someone should do a comparison with what we have and what's in the HTML spec
21:23:24 <nikos> ... and determine whether we need any svg specific differences
21:23:27 <nikos> ... and if so, what they are
21:23:32 <nikos> ... so we can work out what to do with this section
21:23:38 <nikos> ... are you alright with doing that Erik?
21:23:41 <nikos> ed: yes
21:23:49 <nikos> ... also rendering part should be in the rendering chapter somewhere
21:24:17 <nikos> Action: Erik to compare focus text in svg spec vs html spec to determine the differences
21:24:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-3775 - Compare focus text in svg spec vs html spec to determine the differences [on Erik Dahlström - due 2015-04-02].
21:25:00 <nikos> heycam: think that apart from the painting chapter, we've discussed all the issues
21:25:13 <nikos> ... need people to make progress on the issues that they own
21:25:28 <nikos> Rossen: I'll come back with some stuff next week definitely
21:25:40 <nikos> .. will clean up shapes and animation
21:25:48 <nikos> ... extensibility after that
21:26:28 <nikos> nikos: Next week will be Good Friday in Australia
21:26:43 <nikos> heycam: I'll be away
21:27:03 <nikos> ed: I'll also be away next week
21:27:28 <nikos> heycam: should have plenty to discuss the week after
21:27:56 <nikos> Topic: SVG 2 Appendices
21:28:08 <nikos> heycam: Bogdan you've taken all the appendices - are you happy with that?
21:28:21 <nikos> Rossen: Bogdan not here but he picked them up because no one else wanted to sign up for them
21:28:32 <nikos> ... If anyone would like to offer a helping hand that would be good
21:28:40 <nikos> ... if no one wants to sign up we'll try to work through them
21:28:52 <nikos> heycam: Don't think we had a proper discussion about what appendices we want
21:29:01 <nikos> ... so everyone if there's one you particularly like then let Bogdan know
21:29:11 <nikos> AmeliaBR: Rich has been taking care of the accessibility appendix
21:29:15 <nikos> ... will talk about it on the TF
21:29:21 <nikos> ... others not too exciting
21:29:36 <nikos> Rossen: don't think there'll be much friction on the issues, but there's a lot of content
21:30:23 <Zakim> -nikos
21:30:25 <Zakim> -birtles
21:30:26 <nikos> RRSAgent, make minutes
21:30:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/26-svg-minutes.html nikos
21:30:30 <Zakim> -heycam
21:30:31 <Zakim> -stakagi
21:30:40 <Zakim> -AmeliaBR
21:30:43 <Zakim> -Tav
21:38:42 <Zakim> -ed
21:38:43 <Zakim> GA_SVGWG()4:30PM has ended
21:38:43 <Zakim> Attendees were [IPcaller], heycam, nikos, Doug_Schepers, stakagi, birtles, ed, AmeliaBR, Tav, [Microsoft]
21:59:57 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #svg
22:36:36 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #svg
22:51:05 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #svg
23:04:31 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #svg
23:23:15 <jdaggett> jdaggett has joined #svg
23:37:25 <jdaggett_> jdaggett_ has joined #svg
23:37:30 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #svg
23:59:56 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #svg