10:31:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #svg
10:31:11 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/23-svg-irc
10:31:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
10:31:13 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #svg
10:31:15 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
10:31:15 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see GA_SVGWG()6:30AM already started
10:31:16 <trackbot> Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
10:31:16 <trackbot> Date: 23 September 2008
10:31:30 <NH> NH has joined #svg
10:31:40 <Zakim> +??P2
10:31:50 <anthony> Zakim, ??P2 is me
10:31:50 <Zakim> +anthony; got it
10:32:18 <Zakim> +Andrew_Sledd
10:35:46 <ed> ed has joined #svg
10:37:36 <lmartine> lmartine has joined #svg
10:37:49 <aemmons> trackbot, who is here?
10:37:49 <trackbot> Sorry, aemmons, I don't understand 'trackbot, who is here?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
10:38:05 <anthony> Zakim, who is here
10:38:05 <Zakim> anthony, you need to end that query with '?'
10:38:07 <anthony> Zakim, who is here?
10:38:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see Andrew_Emmons, ??P1, anthony, Andrew_Sledd
10:38:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see lmartine, ed, NH, Zakim, RRSAgent, aemmons, heycam, anthony, ed_work, shepazu, trackbot
10:38:17 <Zakim> +Doug_Schepers
10:38:37 <aemmons> tzakim, ??p1 is lmartine
10:38:48 <aemmons> zakim, ??p1 is lmartine
10:38:48 <Zakim> +lmartine; got it
10:38:54 <anthony> Zakim, NH is Andrew_Sledd
10:38:54 <Zakim> sorry, anthony, I do not recognize a party named 'NH'
10:39:04 <anthony> Zakim, Andrew_Sledd is NH
10:39:04 <Zakim> +NH; got it
10:39:30 <anthony> Scribe:
10:39:41 <anthony> Scribe: anthony
10:39:46 <anthony> Chair: Andrew Emmons
10:39:56 <aemmons> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2008JulSep/0340.html
10:40:40 <anthony> Topic: Overflow issue with CSS and SVG specs
10:41:19 <anthony> DS: Summary of issue
10:41:37 <Zakim> +??P5
10:41:44 <ed> Zakim, ??P5 is me
10:41:44 <Zakim> +ed; got it
10:42:16 <anthony> DS: Reason for this is there is a lot of content out there is bigger than the view port
10:42:22 <anthony> ... which is reasonable
10:42:54 <anthony> ... there is an expectation from users that it should be panned
10:43:03 <anthony> ... but instead scroll bars appear
10:43:17 <anthony> ... I guess the question for me is what does most content need?
10:43:23 <anthony> ... panning or scrolling
10:44:23 <anthony> DS: FF essentially does it the way Apple wants it to
10:44:46 <anthony> ED: I sent a reply to this thread
10:44:55 <anthony> ... I was reading a webkit bug tracker
10:45:04 <anthony> ... seems they have a similar way of solving the problem
10:45:07 <anthony> ... as we
10:45:14 <ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-svg-wg/2008JulSep/0025.html
10:45:59 <anthony> AE: It's not just something that user agent dependent?
10:46:05 <anthony> ... they can choose to do whatever they want?
10:46:30 <anthony> DS: Apparently browser based UAs do it different to the way it's specified
10:46:43 <anthony> NH: Not sure if this does affect us
10:47:04 <anthony> LM: For us the panning is controlled by the application on top of the SVG Engine
10:47:08 <anthony> ... up to the application
10:47:16 <anthony> ... which makes sens in a browser environment
10:47:33 <anthony> DS: I've only heard from one person in the public
10:47:47 <anthony> ... and that was David who agrees with me in general
10:48:14 <anthony> ... I haven't heard from anybody who thinks that it would break their content
10:48:34 <anthony> ... given that there is a work around and given that the browsers do this already
10:48:39 <anthony> ... let's go ahead and make the change
10:48:44 <anthony> AE: And this would be an errata right?
10:48:56 <anthony> ... because there's no overflow in Tiny 1.2?
10:49:16 <anthony> DS: Yeah it probably would be an errata
10:49:57 <anthony> AE: Not sure how you would word it
10:50:18 <anthony> ... if we don't have it in Tiny we don't have to mention it
10:50:28 <anthony> ... it is up to the higher level application
10:50:41 <anthony> DS: Hearing no objections
10:50:54 <anthony> ED: I agree
10:51:07 <anthony> NH: I agree
10:52:03 <anthony> RESOLUTION: Make an errata for 1.1 regarding the initial value for the root overflow property will be scroll rather than hidden
10:52:30 <anthony> ED: Visible is the value in CSS
10:52:34 <shepazu> s/scroll/visible/
10:53:24 <anthony> ACTION: Doug to Add to the 1.1 Full errata that the initial value for the root overflow property is scroll rather than hidden
10:53:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2203 - Add to the 1.1 Full errata that the initial value for the root overflow property is scroll rather than hidden [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-09-30].
10:53:37 <aemmons> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2008JulSep/0326.html
10:53:43 <anthony> Topic: Test Suite Comments
10:53:58 <anthony> AE: We could try to get through most of these
10:54:33 <anthony> animate-elem-86-t.svg
10:54:42 <ed> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/svg/animate-elem-86-t.svg
10:55:57 <anthony> ED: So with this test what does Bitflash do?
10:56:06 <anthony> ... I know Opera behaves as the test case assumes
10:57:02 <anthony> LM: With the never box it's checked which is what the test is testing for
10:57:38 <anthony> ... still discussing how the spec should be interpreted
10:58:12 <anthony> AE: If this is a test that doesn't contribute to the coverage
10:58:18 <anthony> ... we should probably drop it back to draft
10:58:22 <anthony> ... and move on
10:58:28 <anthony> AG: I agree with that
10:58:38 <anthony> ED: I'd like to review the sections there to make sure
10:59:24 <anthony> ACTION: Erik to Review animate-elem-86-t test
10:59:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2204 - Review animate-elem-86-t test [on Erik Dahlström - due 2008-09-30].
10:59:45 <anthony> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/svg/interact-focus-201-t.svg
10:59:55 <ed> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/svg/udom-svg-205-t.svg (already fixed)
11:00:58 <anthony> AE: I need some clarification on this
11:01:40 <anthony> ... I think the test is testing the fact that top level SVG can have a Nav_next to tell it which element has focused
11:01:54 <anthony> NH: When the element comes up shouldn't the document have focus?
11:02:13 <anthony> AE: You guys have UA focus right?
11:02:16 <anthony> NH: Yes
11:02:38 <anthony> ... we default focus to the document element always
11:02:51 <anthony> AE: And once you go through your focus ring you go to the text
11:03:46 <anthony> LM: We were wondering what it means by the focus should be "offered"
11:03:51 <anthony> DS: That's bad text
11:03:58 <anthony> ... it's a term that's not defined
11:04:08 <anthony> ... I think we got an LC comment last time
11:04:15 <anthony> ... I think we should find a better term
11:04:40 <anthony> LM: Makes it ambiguous
11:04:47 <anthony> DS: I think that could use some rewording
11:04:52 <anthony> NH: What would the new wording be?
11:05:22 <anthony> AE: And that's related to that particular test is that the problem?
11:05:29 <anthony> NH: No that's not the problem here
11:06:03 <anthony> LM: In our case we don't give the document the initial focus
11:06:15 <anthony> NH: Then you focus backwards?
11:06:17 <anthony> LM: Yes
11:06:55 <anthony> AE: I think both interpretations of the spec are correct
11:07:04 <anthony> ... but it seems like we should tighten the spec
11:07:14 <anthony> NH: But this test as another problem
11:07:23 <anthony> ... [Reads test description]
11:08:57 <anthony> AE: I'd suggest not un-approving this test
11:09:06 <anthony> ... because it's a key 1.2 T feature
11:09:22 <anthony> ... something we could figure out this week or at the test fest
11:10:33 <anthony> ACTION: Nicolas to propose new wording and a change in the test interact-focus-201-t.svg regarding initial focus
11:10:33 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Nicolas
11:10:47 <anthony> ACTION: Niklas to propose new wording and a change in the test interact-focus-201-t.svg regarding initial focus
11:10:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2205 - Propose new wording and a change in the test interact-focus-201-t.svg regarding initial focus [on Niklas Hagelroth - due 2008-09-30].
11:11:46 <anthony> AE: So the next one media-anim-201-t.svg seems to be a similar issue
11:11:56 <anthony> ... can you take a look at that one when you do your action?
11:12:02 <anthony> NH: Ok
11:12:37 <anthony> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/svg/struct-class-201-t.svg
11:12:50 <anthony> AE: I think it's a quick fix
11:12:58 <anthony> ... it's just making it uDOM friendly
11:13:21 <ed> outputEl.firstChild.nodeValue = classVal; should be perhaps outputEl.textContent = classVal?
11:13:29 <anthony> DS: Making it uDOM friendly is fine with me
11:13:58 <anthony> ACTION: Nkilas to Make struct-class-201-t uDOM friendly
11:13:58 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Nkilas
11:14:08 <anthony> ACTION: Niklas to Make struct-class-201-t uDOM friendly
11:14:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2206 - Make struct-class-201-t uDOM friendly [on Niklas Hagelroth - due 2008-09-30].
11:14:35 <anthony> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/svg/media-audio-212-t.svg
11:14:42 <anthony> NH: This one is a bit tricky 
11:14:46 <anthony> ... do you pass this test?
11:15:14 <anthony> LM: The spec seems a bit ambiguous for the display and visibility for audio attributes
11:15:44 <anthony> ... display property part disagrees with the table of values
11:16:09 <anthony> ... so it's not clear whether visibility affects audio
11:16:15 <ed> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/intro.html
11:16:23 <anthony> ED: I haven't had time to look at this particular test
11:16:47 <anthony> ... in the intro if you have display none then visual and audio elements shouldn't be rendered
11:17:14 <anthony> LM: They work in the Bitflash implementation
11:17:23 <ed> definition for "rendering tree"
11:17:54 <anthony> ED: It is possible it could be made more clear
11:18:26 <anthony> NH: When you read about the visibility property it says it only applies to visual elements
11:18:29 <ed> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/painting.html#DisplayProperty
11:18:36 <anthony> DS: This should be clarified in the spec
11:18:48 <anthony> ... I'm pretty sure I recall us having long discussions about this
11:18:52 <anthony> ... and getting LC comments on it
11:19:03 <anthony> ... I think we should clarify the spec
11:19:59 <anthony> ... it is true that the word visibility is bad wording
11:20:09 <anthony> NH: It just it doesn't make much sense to me
11:20:20 <anthony> AE: What do you do guys do for video?
11:20:34 <anthony> NH: Assume it's a graphical element and assume it's muted
11:20:51 <anthony> ... audio should still be heard
11:21:40 <anthony> ED: I think that the audio should not be heard
11:22:51 <anthony> ACTION: Anthony to review the wording of visibility relating to audio
11:22:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2207 - Review the wording of visibility relating to audio [on Anthony Grasso - due 2008-09-30].
11:23:35 <anthony> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/svgstruct-frag-02-t.svg
11:23:36 <ed> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/svg/struct-frag-02-t.svg
11:24:09 <anthony> ED: The last change to the test is changing the viewBox on the element
11:24:25 <ed> s/on the element/on the svg root element/
11:24:33 <ed> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/svg/struct-frag-02-t.svg.diff?r1=1.5&r2=1.6&f=h
11:26:16 <anthony> ACTION: Anthony to fix struct-frag-02-t and 03-t such that the viewBox is added back in
11:26:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2208 - Fix struct-frag-02-t and 03-t such that the viewBox is added back in [on Anthony Grasso - due 2008-09-30].
11:26:52 <anthony> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/svg/interact-event-204-t.svg
11:27:21 <anthony> ED: I agree we shouldn't be using SVG sub elements here
11:27:28 <anthony> ... we could use animation elements perhaps
11:27:42 <anthony> ... or get rid of the sub case
11:28:11 <anthony> AE: Remove the subcase for now
11:28:42 <anthony> ACTION: Emmons to remove the subtest from interact-event-204-t
11:28:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2209 - Remove the subtest from interact-event-204-t [on Andrew Emmons - due 2008-09-30].
11:29:26 <anthony> Topic: Last Call Comments
11:29:26 <ed> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/products/11
11:30:54 <anthony> ED: I responded to Dr Olaf regarding ISSUE-2059
11:30:57 <anthony> ... we can close that
11:31:10 <aemmons> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2060
11:31:12 <anthony> trackbot, ISSUE-2060
11:31:12 <trackbot> Sorry, anthony, I don't understand 'trackbot, ISSUE-2060'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
11:31:23 <anthony> ISSUE-2060
11:31:39 <anthony> DS: I introduced a few mistakes in an example
11:31:55 <anthony> ... one I used id instead of xml:id
11:32:03 <anthony> ... since that's allowed I'd like to leave it as is
11:32:23 <anthony> ... he says more examples needed
11:32:25 <anthony> ... and he's right
11:32:33 <anthony> ... if we have time we'll do it
11:33:12 <anthony> ... should we change all the examples in the spec to have titles
11:34:14 <anthony> AE: I think time is the issue and we should revamp them for the next spec
11:34:22 <anthony> AG: I agree
11:34:45 <Zakim> -ed
11:35:02 <ed> ed has joined #svg
11:35:04 <Zakim> +??P5
11:35:11 <ed> Zakim, ??P5 is me
11:35:11 <Zakim> +ed; got it
11:35:28 <anthony> RESOLUTION: We are not going to change the examples but we will revamp then in the next version of the spec
11:37:50 <anthony> ACTION: Doug to Respond to Dr Olaf regarding the LC comment on the specification examples 
11:37:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2210 - Respond to Dr Olaf regarding the LC comment on the specification examples  [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-09-30].
11:38:05 <aemmons> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2061
11:38:22 <aemmons> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2057
11:38:27 <anthony> ISSUE-2057
11:38:59 <anthony> DS: I made the agreed wording but she did not agree to that
11:40:24 <anthony> ... I think the best resolution would to say that we don't specify what happens if there is another value
11:40:37 <anthony> ... the content would be non-conforming if it uses another value
11:40:54 <anthony> ... but user agents that support CSS are allowed to have other values
11:41:23 <anthony> ... and I propose we put a section in the spec that says for UA that support CSS we can say that content can be made
11:41:37 <anthony> ... that is non-conforming but UAs are allowed to behave according to CSS
11:41:48 <anthony> ED: As long as it's inline with SVG Full 1.1
11:41:59 <anthony> ... not sure if make any overrides because of CSS properties
11:42:36 <anthony> DS: What would mean for a text element to be a block element?
11:42:41 <anthony> ... would it wrap at that point
11:42:51 <anthony> ED: The way I see it SVG doesn't even use block element
11:43:02 <anthony> DS: What if we had display = block
11:43:52 <anthony> ... are there any objects with the content being non-conforming but the UA be conforming
11:44:03 <anthony> ACTION: Doug to propose wording regarding ISSUE-2057
11:44:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2211 - Propose wording regarding ISSUE-2057 [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-09-30].
11:44:25 <aemmons> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2058
11:44:33 <anthony> ISSUE-2058
11:45:27 <anthony> AE: [explains issue]
11:45:29 <anthony> DS: Are the circumstances where the there is no control of the initial direction?
11:45:35 <anthony> LM: I see that that as an issue
11:45:51 <anthony> ... if the underlaying implementation doesn't allow this to be specified
11:46:16 <anthony> ED: This means that content may look different between a Tiny and a Full agent when dealing with BiDi Text
11:46:33 <anthony> DS: Can we hold off until Thur
11:46:47 <aemmons> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2061
11:46:55 <anthony> ISSUE-2061
11:47:47 <anthony> DS: There are two different timing interfaces
11:47:56 <anthony> ED: SVG has inherited SMIL DOM methods
11:48:11 <anthony> ... and HTML5 don't use SMIL
11:48:26 <anthony> DS: No I mean we have two different interfaces, one has start and stop
11:48:34 <anthony> ... and the other has pause and unpause
11:48:49 <anthony> ... if you look at the uDOM and you look at where pause is
11:48:54 <anthony> ... it's got it's own interface
11:49:32 <anthony> s/it's got it's/it has its/
11:49:45 <anthony> AE: It's simply because we're inheriting SMIL
11:49:55 <anthony> ... this is carry over from 1.1
11:49:59 <anthony> ... we've had this for a long time
11:50:18 <anthony> ... this is simply because of the legacy of supporting SMIL
11:50:34 <anthony> ... the element time control is beyond our control
11:50:45 <anthony> DS: Couldn't we add methods to that
11:50:56 <anthony> AE: Too late to do that
11:52:02 <anthony> ACTION: Emmons to Give a reply on ISSUE-2061 explaining why the methods are the way they are
11:52:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2212 - Give a reply on ISSUE-2061 explaining why the methods are the way they are [on Andrew Emmons - due 2008-09-30].
11:52:57 <aemmons> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2062
11:53:07 <anthony> ISSUE-2062
11:54:23 <anthony> DS: This may take a bit of time
11:54:35 <aemmons> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2064
11:54:46 <anthony> ISSUE-2064
11:55:13 <anthony> DS: One of the attributes I introduced
11:55:19 <anthony> ... that's meant for metadata
11:55:31 <anthony> ... I'll talk to the RDFA people and find out how to better specify this
11:55:53 <anthony> ... my definition was stricter then theirs but could do with more tightening
11:56:42 <anthony> ... he says xlink:href can be animate but the type can not be animated
11:57:02 <anthony> ... so if I had a video and I changed the source I couldn't change the type
11:57:24 <anthony> ... e.g. changing OGG file to AVI and not changing the type
11:57:51 <anthony> ... so the question is why type cannot be animated
11:58:36 <anthony> ED: I personally don't see a reason why it shouldn't be animated
11:58:46 <anthony> NH: I agree type should be animated
11:59:14 <anthony> DS: So if we agree should we say something along the lines of we should only change the type if the xlink:href changes
11:59:24 <anthony> ... you don't want to randomly changing the type
11:59:45 <anthony> ED: Well if you had a UA that animated the type for pre-loading
12:00:06 <anthony> DS: Are you sure there is no reason to have it not animatable
12:00:30 <anthony> ED: We should say that the content be re-evaluated if the type is changed
12:01:19 <anthony> DS: It should be animatable where it makes sense
12:01:45 <ed> that is: probably not the script element since xlink:href isn't animatable there
12:01:56 <anthony> ACTION: Erik to Make the type attribute animatable for types
12:01:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2213 - Make the type attribute animatable for types [on Erik Dahlström - due 2008-09-30].
12:02:44 <anthony> DS: Do you want me to reply after the change?
12:02:52 <anthony> ED: Yes, that would be good
12:05:15 <Zakim> -NH
12:05:17 <Zakim> -lmartine
12:05:17 <Zakim> -Doug_Schepers
12:05:19 <Zakim> -anthony
12:05:22 <Zakim> -ed
12:05:23 <Zakim> -Andrew_Emmons
12:05:23 <Zakim> GA_SVGWG()6:30AM has ended
12:05:25 <Zakim> Attendees were Andrew_Emmons, anthony, Doug_Schepers, lmartine, NH, ed
12:05:29 <anthony> Zakim, bye
12:05:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #svg
12:05:34 <anthony> RRSAgent, make minutes
12:05:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/23-svg-minutes.html anthony