20:29:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #svg
20:29:42 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/06-svg-irc
20:30:15 <nikos> trackbot, start telcon
20:30:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
20:30:19 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
20:30:19 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
20:30:20 <trackbot> Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
20:30:20 <trackbot> Date: 06 October 2016
20:30:26 <nikos> Chair: Nikos
20:30:31 <nikos> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Oct/0001.html
20:31:04 <nikos> present+ nikos
20:31:14 <Tav> present+ Tav
20:31:17 <stakagi> present+ stakagi
20:31:17 <shane> present+ Shane
20:31:18 <birtles> present+ birtles
20:31:20 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
20:31:31 <jwatt> jwatt has joined #svg
20:31:33 <hober> hober has joined #svg
20:31:38 <hober> present+
20:31:41 <krit> +krit
20:31:49 <krit> present+ krit
20:31:55 <jwatt> +jwatt
20:32:16 <AmeliaBR> present+ AmeliaBR
20:32:35 <shepazu> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/svg-2016.html
20:32:37 <richardschwerdtfeger> richardschwerdtfeger has joined #svg
20:33:17 <hober> present+ smfr
20:33:18 <nikos> scribe: Nikos
20:33:20 <nikos> scribenick: nikos
20:33:33 <smfr> smfr has joined #svg
20:33:47 <richardschwerdtfeger> present+ Rich_Schwerdtfeger
20:34:11 <fguimont> fguimont has joined #svg
20:35:42 <jwatt> present+ jwatt
20:35:59 <nikos> Topic: Proposed Charter
20:36:06 <TabAtkins> present+ tabatkins
20:36:11 <TabAtkins> present+ Alex Russell
20:36:19 <TabAtkins> present+ Philip Rogers (pdr)
20:36:32 <Rossen_> Rossen_ has joined #svg
20:36:41 <Rossen_> present+ Rossen
20:36:46 <Rossen_> present+ Bogdan
20:36:53 <TabAtkins> present+ Shane Stephens
20:37:09 <pdr> pdr has joined #svg
20:37:21 <nikos> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/svg-2016.html
20:37:21 <shepazu> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/svg-2016.html
20:37:21 <shepazu> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/svg-2016.html
20:37:34 <nikos> shepazu: This charter is a short term one year charter
20:37:38 <ChrisL> ChrisL has joined #svg
20:37:52 <nikos> ... it assumes that the only work item is the completion of SVG 2
20:38:08 <nikos> ... which means finalising the spec and removing any at risk features, making sure everything in the spec is tested and has implementations
20:38:17 <nikos> ... there are some additional deliverables, that have to do with a11y TF
20:38:34 <nikos> ... there is some overlap between a11y TF and SVG WG but it's just a few people
20:38:49 <nikos> ... the final deliverable is the SVG authoring guide - which is a non normative guide to authoring SVG
20:39:09 <nikos> ... which includes SVG 2 features and is intended to be aspirational to let authors see what they would like implemented
20:39:23 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #svg
20:39:58 <nikos> nikos: a lot of deliverables have been moved to the CSSWG and the FXTF is not in the proposed charter
20:40:01 <ChrisL> present+ ChrisL
20:40:05 <nikos> AmeliaBR: that was decided at TPAC?
20:40:06 <nikos> nikos: yes
20:40:18 <krit> https://svgwg.org
20:40:30 <nikos> shepazu: final thing to note is the few modules (paths, stroke, and markers), those were broken out of hte new spec and include new features
20:40:36 <nikos> ... those are not included in the new charter
20:40:51 <nikos> nikos: but could be picked up by a future WG / CG
20:41:07 <nikos> shepazu: So the scope of the charter was narrowed further at TPAC
20:41:19 <nikos> ... part of our goal today is to decide if this is a reasonable plan and if there's a path forward for this
20:41:27 <dbaron> Present+ dbaron
20:41:58 <nikos> Topic: W3C persepective on SVG 2 ongoing
20:42:12 <nikos> plh: From the W3C perspective we have SVG 1.1 and the spec is 10-12 years old
20:42:17 <fguimont> present+ fguimont
20:42:20 <nikos> shepazu: SVG 1.1 SE was published in 2012
20:42:27 <nikos> plh: it fixes bugs from the previous version
20:42:33 <nikos> ... so what I'm looking for is the next step after that
20:42:43 <nikos> ... my minimum bar is that there are probably more bugs to fix in the spec
20:42:52 <nikos> ... and we should find a path to update that recommendation, to fix those bugs
20:43:01 <nikos> ... also implementations have been evolving so we should reflect that
20:43:12 <nikos> ... I understand SVG 2 has features that do contain 2 implementations but are not part of SVG 1.1 SE
20:43:18 <nikos> ... so they should be part of the next SVG
20:43:30 <nikos> ... then there are things that don't have two implementations - and we should figure out what to keep and what not to keep
20:43:54 <nikos> ... I'm not her eto tell you how to make that call, but from a process point of view, we need implementation experience
20:44:08 <nikos> ... then there are things that are not close to having two implementations and we don't know how we'll get implementations
20:44:14 <nikos> ... in my opinion we'll need to drop thos
20:44:17 <nikos> s/thos/those
20:44:22 <nikos> ... or we'll never get to ship the REC
20:44:42 <Rossen_> present+ Adrian Bateman
20:44:44 <nikos> ... I'm looking for an update path where we can fix bugs in the existing SVG 1.1 spec, add things that have two implementations that aren't in SVG 1.1
20:44:46 <shepazu> q+
20:44:51 <nikos> TabAtkins: that's what we want as well
20:45:07 <nikos> ... we would love to see the SVG WG continue it's work filling in corner cases and better defining them
20:45:19 <nikos> ... new features that haven't picked up interest yet should be pushed to WICG
20:45:27 <nikos> ... don't want them to hold up the draft itself
20:45:39 <nikos> ... that way we can get SVG 2 done in the next year
20:46:14 <nikos> alex: There's going to be questions about how to integrate accessibility and other features into SVG and that could go beyond a year charter
20:46:42 <nikos> TabAtkins: a few of the things we want to pull out are hatch and mesh gradients - they are valuable features, it's a brand new feature that hasn't been well implemented
20:46:52 <nikos> ... and can be independently developed just fine
20:47:01 <Rossen_> q+
20:47:02 <nikos> ... and developed in WICG until we get implementer interest
20:47:28 <nikos> ... separating out things that haven't picked up implementer interest would help with the one year plan
20:47:59 <nikos> adrian: I'm in favour of progressing with removing the features taht clearly haven't captured the enthusiasm of implementers
20:48:14 <nikos> ... if we can easily identify the things that aren't going to gain implementation soon
20:48:26 <nikos> ... it's going to be difficult to say we have good experience with them and progress
20:48:32 <nikos> ... we should identify and remove them quickly
20:48:48 <nikos> ... for other things where there is interest and there is some implementation work being done, I want us to be pragmatic
20:48:58 <nikos> ... if there is enough experience in the group implementing a feature
20:49:12 <nikos> ... and the spec is in good shape and describes what we all agree can and should be implemented
20:49:26 <nikos> ... then I want to make sure we don't get stuck in a trap of not making progress because things aren't perfect
20:49:31 <nikos> ... spec will never be perfect
20:49:42 <shepazu> q+ to ask whether authoring tools and polyfills count as implementations
20:49:59 <nikos> ... move forward with things we do have experience with
20:50:24 <plh> plh has joined #svg
20:50:31 <Rossen_> ack Rossen_
20:50:52 <nikos> tess: We largely agree with what Adrian said
20:51:09 <nikos> ... as far as short term work in SVG - we are mostly concerned with perf fixes and compatibility problems with our own engine
20:51:18 <nikos> ... probably some low hanging fruit SVG 2 stuff we could do
20:51:25 <nikos> ... charter seems reasonable, what Adrian said seems reasonable
20:51:28 <krit> q+
20:51:28 <nikos> ... See Dean's email for more
20:51:36 <shepazu> q- later
20:51:45 <nikos> krit: When I look at the current spec that went to CR
20:51:51 <nikos> ... we see a bunch of features that got added
20:51:55 <nikos> ... mesh gradients, hatches, etc
20:52:07 <nikos> ... many of those features are at risk which is fine for CR and shouldn't block REC
20:52:15 <nikos> ... if we know for other features we ahve two implementations
20:52:23 <nikos> ... keeping them in and see how other features proceed
20:52:33 <nikos> ... for Adobe, the most important thing is SVG should be accessible
20:52:43 <nikos> ... SVG 2 has improvemetns there and a11y TF specs are coming up
20:52:55 <nikos> ... for SVG again, many of the features that aren't named yet have one implementation
20:53:00 <nikos> ... so I don't see SVG 2 as being in bad shape
20:53:18 <nikos> ... another part is Adobe have a strong interest in getting more features - e.g. mesh gradients, stroke features, variable width stroke, etc
20:53:34 <nikos> ... which do not neccessarily need to live in the SVG WG ,but we do want to see them proceed
20:53:56 <jwatt> mic issue
20:54:03 <jwatt> one sec, I'll change my headset
20:54:14 <nikos> birtles: Our position is the same - we are very interested in compat fixes and simplifications, and reconciling SVG with HTML
20:54:22 <nikos> ... picking up low hanging fruit
20:54:33 <nikos> ... but we don't have plans for mesh gradients or hash patterns
20:54:45 <nikos> ... we are interested in z-index, have done the refactoring
20:55:15 <nikos> jwatt: I'd be interested in z-index
20:55:20 <nikos> ... it's not a big change for us to implement
20:55:38 <nikos> ... to reiterate what Brian said - we are mostly interested in perf in our own engine and compatibility rather than new features
20:55:48 <nikos> ... interesting to hear from Adobe that they're interested in new features
20:55:56 <nikos> ... vast majority of people are going to want to use a tool
20:56:13 <nikos> ... so less likely to hear from authors waht they want, they'll go to the tool vendors
20:56:22 <nikos> ... wonder if there's something we can do there to get feedback
20:56:33 <nikos> ... we haven't been hearing much feedback other than performance and compatibility
20:56:41 <nikos> ... e.g. how the use element works
20:56:43 <AmeliaBR> q+ to discuss practical modularization possibilities
20:56:50 <krit> q-
20:57:04 <nikos> Tav: InkScape is very interested in mesh gradients and hatches
20:57:09 <Rossen_> ack shepazu
20:57:09 <Zakim> shepazu, you wanted to ask whether authoring tools and polyfills count as implementations
20:57:11 <nikos> ... it's important for artists to be able to use these tools
20:57:25 <nikos> ... very disapointing to hear these are not high priority for others
20:57:31 <plh> q+
20:57:34 <nikos> krit: think we do agree interoperability is one of the most important things
20:57:50 <nikos> cabanier: from what I've heard at Adobe accessibility, interop and performance
20:58:05 <nikos> TabAtkins: seems to be consitent that browser vendors are focusing on interop and finish existing features
20:58:12 <nikos> ... not so interested in new features at the moment
20:58:19 <nikos> ... tools are interest in new features
20:58:33 <nikos> ... this is why separting things to WICG to gather interest is a good idea
20:58:42 <nikos> ... not blocking the spec
20:59:01 <nikos> ... moving things to WICG still lets you spend the time building, but builds interest organically rather than slowing down the spec
20:59:14 <nikos> cabanier: so every new feature except accessibility should be in WICG?
20:59:16 <nikos> AmeliaBR: not that simple
20:59:35 <nikos> TabAtkins: things that have n't picked up implementer interst should be carved out - easy to carve out mesh gradients and hatch
20:59:57 <nikos> ... lots of things are small changes (e.g. dom changes) are probably ok even though no one is working on them eyt
21:00:16 <nikos> https://nikosandronikos.github.io/svg2-info/svg2-feature-support.html
21:01:24 <Rossen_> q+
21:01:31 <nikos> nikos: I've been working on a matrix to gather feedback - would like to get concrete feedback from each group. Would be good to get PRs from each group to update the data
21:02:18 <nikos> shepazu: I was wondering what the current thinking counting authoring tools and polyfills as implementations for the purpose of CR exit?
21:02:38 <nikos> plh: Interesting question. Political correct answer is you need to show dev experience
21:02:49 <TabAtkins> Back!
21:02:55 <nikos> ... my best recommendation is about providing a good argument to the director about how you are going to move the spec forward
21:03:06 <nikos> ... we dont' say implementation should be in web browser or not
21:03:16 <nikos> ... no such thing as a definitive answer
21:03:35 <nikos> ... svg is part of the editing system - that's why we don't see requests to browsers
21:03:36 <dbaron> I think if the spec is claiming that it's to be implemented in browsers, then you probably shouldn't be counting polyfills.  But if the spec is a spec for JS library features, then it makes sense.
21:03:44 <nikos> ... bit of a chicken and egg problem
21:03:54 <nikos> ... I don't want to say Inkscape isn't an implementation of SVG
21:03:59 <AmeliaBR> ack me
21:03:59 <Zakim> AmeliaBR, you wanted to discuss practical modularization possibilities
21:04:03 <TabAtkins> q+
21:04:12 <plh> q-
21:04:14 <nikos> AmeliaBR: I just wanted to go over what we can do practically - agree with what plh said
21:04:26 <nikos> ... for many new features we've got a big step to cross over
21:04:48 <nikos> ... editors won't make markup if it won't be used in browsers and browsers wont support feature if it's not being used
21:04:52 <nikos> ... polyfills are a good solution for that
21:05:06 <nikos> ... in a broader sense - paint servers are an easy target for modularisation
21:05:12 <nikos> ... they can easily be pulled out because of a module
21:05:22 <nikos> ... whether it makes sense at this point with a pretty much complete spec
21:05:29 <nikos> ... not sure what incubation is expected
21:05:32 <shepazu> q?
21:05:41 <shepazu> agenda+ testing
21:05:45 <shepazu> agenda?
21:06:03 <nikos> ... there's a lot of small features and some tricky new features to separate out
21:06:19 <nikos> ... e.g. text chapter has been hugely rewritten and the new prose is about fixing unspecified details of the old spec
21:06:36 <nikos> ... and a lot is about supporting new features - multi line text and harmonisation of css
21:06:45 <nikos> ... separating out the new features would be a lot of spec work
21:06:56 <nikos> ... before we start that we probably want a serious discussion from implementors
21:07:03 <nikos> ... about wrapping text, etc
21:07:21 <Rossen_> wrapping text is not a priority for us
21:07:22 <nikos> ... for browser implementations, a lot of these changes are supposed to be about helping them reuse CSS code
21:07:37 <nikos> ... then there's z-index, paint-order, vector-effects
21:07:56 <nikos> ... in many cases we have some implementations - do we want to be strict and say all features should go into a new module?
21:08:03 <nikos> ... or say they're out on the web and so they're an interop concern?
21:08:17 <nikos> TabAtkins: antyhing that already has some interest is fine to keep here
21:08:46 <nikos> ... it's just features that have no web implementor interest that are suspect - nothing wrong with what InkScape have done but they have different concerns than browsers
21:08:56 <nikos> ... design of a feature isn't complete if web implementors haven't looked at it yet
21:09:04 <Rossen_> q?
21:09:24 <nikos> ... we don't have to be strict about this, we can be go piece by piece for a few issues. Don't need to decide everything now
21:09:34 <nikos> ... we want to get SVG 2 to stability
21:09:42 <nikos> ... anything on that track is fine, anything not get rid of
21:10:14 <nikos> adrian: It sounds like we have two choices - we can keep the current spec as it is, if we do that there's no prospect of the spec progressing anytime soon
21:10:31 <nikos> ... or we can remove some things from the spec in order to get what plh describes as being a good story
21:10:31 <krit> q+
21:10:48 <Rossen_> q-
21:10:49 <nikos> ... maybe there isn't consensus on what to remove and we're not going to agree on this call
21:10:59 <plh> q+ to talk about regular releases of SVG
21:11:11 <TabAtkins> ack
21:11:16 <TabAtkins> ack TabAtkins
21:11:23 <nikos> ... proposal is to move forward and recharter to narrow focus, remove features that aren't going to meet exit criteria anytime soon
21:11:34 <nikos> ... if people object to that we can talk, but I'm not hearing that
21:12:02 <shepazu> q+ to note that there's also the idea of closing the SVG WG, and to talk about timeline
21:12:03 <nikos> krit: SVG 2 spec is currently CR - what kind of progress to we expect? If features are not defined correctly then spec should not be in CR
21:12:30 <nikos> ... I get the impression that everyone feels the spec can not proceed at the moment and features are not implementable
21:12:46 <nikos> adrian: it's not about not being implementable, it's about not getting experience necessary to indicate that
21:12:56 <shane> q+
21:13:02 <nikos> krit: it would have been better to get that input before going to CR - but a lot of those features are at risk anyway
21:13:22 <nikos> ... think we should focus on things that are not at risk
21:13:42 <nikos> Rossen_: our push has been to get the spec to something shippable
21:13:56 <nikos> ... almost two years later we have something that can pretty much be shipped
21:14:02 <TabAtkins> +1 to Rossen
21:14:02 <nikos> ... some things we need to mark at risk
21:14:04 <shane> q-
21:14:11 <nikos> ... some things we can move to WICG
21:14:15 <krit> q-
21:14:16 <shane> 100% agree with Rossen
21:14:28 <nikos> shepazu: Going to CR was a declaration that we weren't adding anything new and in terms of new work things were stable
21:14:40 <shane> krit: for the record Rossen, Tab and I have been providing exactly the input you claim was missing before CR for at least 12 months now
21:14:56 <nikos> shepazu: you're right we may need to go back to CR again
21:16:04 <nikos> nikos: think we need to get concrete feedback - we're not going to work out what the svg 2 spec will look like that this call
21:16:21 <nikos> plh: my goal is not to stop work on SVG - but publishing SVG on a regular basis
21:16:31 <nikos> ... ideally every WG should publish a REC on a three year basis
21:17:24 <nikos> nikos: sounds reasonable and SVG 2 helps taht a lot because it's a big tidy up of what we had before and will make it easier to continue work
21:17:25 <AmeliaBR> q+
21:17:31 <nikos> ack plh
21:17:31 <Zakim> plh, you wanted to talk about regular releases of SVG
21:17:41 <AmeliaBR> ack shepazu
21:17:41 <Zakim> shepazu, you wanted to note that there's also the idea of closing the SVG WG, and to talk about timeline
21:18:10 <nikos> shepazu: I counted that we have 138 distinct features
21:18:19 <nikos> ... 3 tests per feature for minimum viable testing strategy
21:18:33 <nikos> ... that gives 448 tests - that's about 55 hours of testing, giving one hour per test
21:18:51 <nikos> s/55 hours/55 days
21:19:18 <nikos> ... obviously it's not going to happen in three months - but I want to be realistic. If we went full bore it would take that long to prepare the test suite
21:19:52 <Rossen_> smfr: are you saying you have that much perf work to do?
21:20:05 <nikos> ... I don't see us doing the work within this charter, there would need to be an extension or recharter if we are going to do this task
21:20:22 <nikos> ... I'm hearing from browser vendors that they would like to see SVG 2 reach some completion
21:20:27 <nikos> ... whether it's the way it is now or stripped back
21:20:55 <nikos> ... even with stripped down we are looking at at least an additional 3-6 months work
21:20:57 <nikos> ... and that's agressive
21:21:08 <jwatt> q+
21:21:09 <Rossen_> q+ adrianba
21:21:11 <nikos> ... don't know how you feel about comiting to that?
21:21:24 <nikos> ... need committment to help
21:21:45 <nikos> plh: I would be concerned if the result was this was going to fall to W3C staff to complete the tests
21:21:54 <nikos> ... my idea would be the community at large would work to make svg better
21:22:04 <nikos> ack AmeliaBR
21:22:28 <nikos> AmeliaBR: do we need to consider in the charter to use more general language if we are going to split sections out?
21:22:37 <nikos> ... in terms of what the deliverables are
21:22:50 <nikos> ... if we split things out of svg 2, do the new modules automatically become in scope?
21:22:54 <nikos> ... can we be flexible?
21:23:21 <shepazu> q+
21:23:35 <nikos> ack jwatt
21:23:48 <nikos> jwatt: what format will the new tests be?
21:24:02 <nikos> shepazu: we're looking to use web-platform-tests
21:24:36 <nikos> ... probably we would not transfer old tests over - if old tests apply we keep them in the existing test framework
21:25:31 <Rossen_> q?
21:25:34 <nikos> jwatt: web-platform-tests sounds good to me, rather than converting old tests, it would be better to take tests from Mozilla's reftest for example
21:26:10 <nikos> adrian: concrete proposal is to recharter SVG WG with narrow scope and narrow time frame to remove featuers that will not be implemented in that time frame
21:26:22 <TabAtkins> +1
21:26:28 <Rossen_> +1
21:26:50 <plh> q+
21:26:53 <nikos> ... it's about getting the spec progressing
21:26:56 <plh> +1
21:27:08 <shane> +1
21:27:53 <nikos> RESOLUTION: Re-charter SVG WG for one more year with a focus on moving SVG 2 to REC with only the features that have implementor experience
21:28:05 <nikos> Rossen_: can we try something shorter than a year?
21:28:33 <nikos> shepazu: we should try for less than one year
21:29:11 <Rossen_> OK, recharter for <= 365 days
21:29:13 <plh> q?
21:29:17 <nikos> nikos: think that would only be a good idea if we can get concrete commitments for time from each member
21:29:28 <Rossen_> ack adrianba
21:29:49 <shepazu> q-
21:30:05 <nikos> plh: Adrian used the word pragmatic earlier - and it's good to emphasise rthat
21:30:25 <nikos> .. we don't need to have a fully comprehensive test suite. We want a spec within a year and it's a matter of telling a good story to the director to move things forward
21:30:26 <shepazu> (minimum viable test suite)
21:30:32 <nikos> .. and then we keep iterating
21:30:39 <nikos> krit: spec in a year doesn't mean REC?
21:30:46 <nikos> plh: it does mean REC
21:31:04 <nikos> ... if you don't have implementation you remove the feature from the spec
21:31:13 <nikos> AmeliaBR: our next step then is sorting out what are implementors priorties
21:31:26 <nikos> ... so Nikos can you send an email to gather feedback?
21:31:44 <nikos> ... which features are implemented, partially implemented, or have some priority or not
21:31:53 <krit> nikos: is there a way to specify a priority of features that members would like to see proceed?
21:32:27 <nikos> nikos: Keep an eye out on www-svg and I'll send something out
21:32:38 <nikos> shepazu: having a point person for each implementation would be handy right now
21:32:45 <nikos> ... so we know who to talk to about plans
21:33:35 <nikos> RRSAgent, make minutes
21:33:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/06-svg-minutes.html nikos
21:36:13 <pdr> Have there been implementations of the scrollbar changes? That is, supporting overflow scroll?
21:45:10 <nikos> pdr: not afaik - if anyone has done anything it would be Mozilla I'd expect
21:45:45 <pdr> Cool, thanks.
21:56:03 <richardschwerdtfeger> richardschwerdtfeger has joined #svg
22:51:13 <shepazu_> shepazu_ has joined #svg
22:59:36 <smfr> smfr has joined #svg