IRC log of svg on 2009-11-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:00:42 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #svg

20:00:42 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/11/30-svg-irc

20:00:44 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

20:00:44 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #svg

20:00:46 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG

20:00:46 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()3:00PM scheduled to start now

20:00:47 [trackbot]

Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference

20:00:47 [trackbot]

Date: 30 November 2009

20:00:52 [Zakim]

GA_SVGWG()3:00PM has now started

20:00:53 [Zakim]

+Shepazu

20:01:32 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

20:01:47 [ed]

Zakim, [IP is me

20:01:47 [Zakim]

+ed; got it

20:03:44 [ChrisL]

ChrisL has joined #svg

20:04:18 [ChrisL]

rrsagent, here

20:04:18 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2009/11/30-svg-irc#T20-04-18

20:04:45 [shepazu]

agenda+ Spec conventions http://www.w3.org/People/Schepers/spec-conventions.html

20:05:26 [ed]

agenda+ svg params

20:05:26 [Zakim]

+ +33.9.52.49.aaaa

20:08:04 [ed]

agenda+ update on ACTION-2682 (svg errata implementation report)

20:16:29 [anthony]

anthony has joined #svg

20:16:37 [Zakim]

+??P2

20:16:54 [jwatt]

jwatt has joined #svg

20:16:55 [Zakim]

+??P3

20:17:04 [jwatt]

Zakim: who's here?

20:17:08 [anthony]

Zakim, ??P2 is me

20:17:08 [Zakim]

+anthony; got it

20:17:08 [jwatt]

Zakim, who's here?

20:17:09 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Shepazu, ed, +33.9.52.49.aaaa, anthony, ??P3

20:17:11 [Zakim]

On IRC I see jwatt, anthony, ChrisL, Zakim, RRSAgent, ed, shepazu, trackbot, ed_work, eseidelDesk

20:17:14 [shepazu]

Zakim, pick a victim

20:17:14 [Zakim]

Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Shepazu

20:17:20 [ChrisL]

zakim, ??p2 is Anthony

20:17:20 [Zakim]

I already had ??P2 as anthony, ChrisL

20:17:28 [jwatt]

Zakim, ?? is me

20:17:28 [Zakim]

+jwatt; got it

20:19:13 [ChrisL]

agenda?

20:19:15 [jwatt]

scribe: Jonathan Watt

20:19:23 [jwatt]

scribenick: jwatt

20:19:32 [ChrisL]

zaki, take up agendum 3

20:19:45 [ChrisL]

zakim, take up agendum 3

20:19:45 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "update on ACTION-2682 (svg errata implementation report)" taken up [from ed]

20:19:56 [ed]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009OctDec/0049.html

20:20:01 [ed]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009OctDec/att-0049/implementation-report.html

20:20:30 [jwatt]

CL: I sent an email with the implementation report

20:20:46 [jwatt]

...if you look in the first column, it styles it in grey if there are no passes at all

20:20:59 [jwatt]

...there are four of those, and we're wondering what to do about that

20:21:12 [jwatt]

...or we can back those out

20:21:34 [jwatt]

...and publish 2nd edition with a note that those need traction

20:21:45 [ed]

btw, latest "nightly" gogi passes the http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/animate-dom-01-f.svg test

20:24:58 [shepazu]

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/

20:26:52 [shepazu]

agenda+ CVS patch comments

20:28:53 [ed]

ED: types-dom-02-f tests some parts that (animVal mutability) that we didn't errata, it's just testing previous 1.1 behavior

20:28:54 [ChrisL]

types-dom-02-f could be split, some is errate related and some is not. opera passes the erata-elated part

20:28:57 [jwatt]

CL: my action would be to figure out which errata need to be backed out

20:29:33 [jwatt]

DS: backing out would not mean that the errata are lost, only that they would go to a 3rd Edition errata

20:29:52 [shepazu]

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Errata_in_SVG_1.1_Second_Edition

20:30:46 [ChrisL]

Stroking subpaths of zero lengthpainting-stroke-10-t.svg

20:31:01 [ed]

ACTION: ed to split types-dom-02-f.svg into two tests, one part testing animVal, one testing the rest (errata parts)

20:31:01 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-2700 - Split types-dom-02-f.svg into two tests, one part testing animVal, one testing the rest (errata parts) [on Erik Dahlström - due 2009-12-07].

20:31:40 [ChrisL]

Firefox nightly 20090929 is elderly

20:32:00 [ChrisL]

jwatt: firefox trunk passes i think

20:33:12 [ChrisL]

... oh, no it doesn't

20:33:15 [ChrisL]

References to characters in SVGTextContentElement should be UTF-16 code unitstext-dom-02-f.svg

20:35:54 [ChrisL]

text-dom-02-f.svg opera gogi and safari pass the top 3 subtests.

20:36:55 [ed]

safari 4.0.3 passes first and third subtests

20:38:46 [ChrisL]

firefox nightly passes 1 and 4

20:39:55 [ChrisL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B

20:45:06 [jwatt]

JW: it might be a good idea to to use a TTF/OTF/WOFF font instead of SVG fonts so the test is only testing what it purports to be testing

20:45:32 [jwatt]

...because lack of SVG fonts will mean these DOM methods will not pass

20:45:52 [jwatt]

...I mean they could pass, but the test will fail because of lack of SVG font support

20:46:21 [jwatt]

ACTION: ChrisL to split the test

20:46:21 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-2701 - Split the test [on Chris Lilley - due 2009-12-07].

20:47:54 [ed]

agenda?

20:47:59 [ChrisL]

fixed in tracker to be meaningful

20:48:34 [ed]

Zakim, take up agendum 1

20:48:34 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "Spec conventions http://www.w3.org/People/Schepers/spec-conventions.html" taken up [from shepazu]

20:51:53 [jwatt]

DS: I was talking to Ian Jacobs about having standard conventions across specifications so that people could transfer knowledge between specifications

20:52:27 [jwatt]

...I adopted some of the conventions from the SVG for DOM Events

20:52:49 [jwatt]

...the above document would change what SVG is doing too in our next version of the spec

20:53:27 [ChrisL]

www-archive@w3.org

20:53:39 [jwatt]

...I took the convention discussion to www-archive since that seems to be the w3c's general discussion list

20:53:51 [shepazu]

http://www.w3.org/People/Schepers/spec-conventions.html

20:54:07 [jwatt]

...what do you think?

20:54:53 [jwatt]

CL: I think it's a good idea in general, and it certainly means people need to learn less if they have an interest in more than one specification

20:55:02 [jwatt]

...in general I think it's good work

20:55:09 [jwatt]

AG: I think it's good

20:56:12 [jwatt]

DS: as long as people are using the markup conventions they can restyle if the default style doesn't work for them for some reason

20:56:43 [jwatt]

...we can't simply say that there's one stylesheet that you reference

20:56:57 [jwatt]

...there will be a supplementary stylesheet

20:57:16 [jwatt]

...would the SVG WG be willing to adopt this?

20:58:15 [jwatt]

...whatever specs I'm editing I plan to use this for

20:58:58 [jwatt]

...there are also conventions about putting an id on things you call out, since if they are that important they should be linkable to

20:59:40 [jwatt]

JW: it sounds good in principle, but I'm minuting so haven't looked at the doc

21:00:20 [jwatt]

...is this still a work in progress, will it change a lot?

21:00:31 [jwatt]

DS: I don't think it will change a lot

21:00:37 [jwatt]

...at least not the markup

21:00:46 [jwatt]

...the styles will probably change

21:01:44 [jwatt]

Carl proposed two different types of issue

21:02:14 [jwatt]

...so I separated out blocking issues

21:02:32 [jwatt]

Hixie suggested a change to use XXX

21:02:42 [jwatt]

Bert on the chairs list proposed changes

21:02:47 [jwatt]

I incorporated those

21:03:14 [jwatt]

Fantasai suggested improvements to the semantic markup

21:03:20 [jwatt]

which I added

21:03:51 [jwatt]

using <em> rather than <span> for example

21:04:36 [jwatt]

I got a bit of pushback about that from someone at Opera

21:04:47 [jwatt]

but accessibility people were behind it

21:05:01 [jwatt]

s/someone/Gregory/

21:08:26 [jwatt]

CL: I think using <em> is overloading it, but I can understand where the accessibility people are coming from if it makes things easier for them given the current state of the art with screen readers

21:09:48 [jwatt]

CL: is it the right time to start changing "real" documents right now, or should we wait a while

21:10:00 [jwatt]

JW: that's where I was coming from

21:10:27 [jwatt]

DS: well in my experience you need to use it to start getting feedback, good or bad

21:10:48 [jwatt]

...so I think we should start using it to get focus on the issue

21:11:33 [jwatt]

CL: I think that's fine

21:12:40 [jwatt]

RESOLUTION: The SVG WG will start using the conventions proposed by Doug

21:14:36 [ed]

Zakim, take up agendum 4

21:14:36 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "CVS patch comments" taken up [from shepazu]

21:15:51 [jwatt]

ED: for small typo type things I find patch files very useful

21:19:17 [jwatt]

DS: I prefer to see things inline, not in the form of a patch

21:19:37 [jwatt]

...I think it's just as easy to quote the offending text in an email

21:22:28 [jwatt]

...I'm also afraid that in a time of high feedback, if we set a trend of accepting patches, then something we might not want could at some point slip through

21:22:50 [jwatt]

CL: I'd also prefer an email just saying what text needs fixed

21:23:39 [jwatt]

AG: we also have the issue that our internal format is not the final document we generate

21:24:04 [jwatt]

...so patches would probably be patching the wrong document and therefore be a problem to integrate

21:28:37 [jwatt]

ACTION: Chris to reply to Helder explaining why we would prefer not to receive patch files

21:28:37 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-2702 - Reply to Helder explaining why we would prefer not to receive patch files [on Chris Lilley - due 2009-12-07].

21:29:02 [shepazu]

agenda?

21:30:27 [jwatt]

DS: I sent an email to the HTML WG explaining that their current version of params can only be used with plugins

21:31:19 [jwatt]

...mjs sent replied saying he'd discourage use of <object> and would prefer <iframe>

21:31:39 [jwatt]

...I personally don't think that meets the needs of some of the things people want to use this for

21:31:51 [jwatt]

...trying to edit a URL string

21:32:19 [jwatt]

...that seems painful to me

21:32:28 [jwatt]

...the param element seems the natural way to go to me

21:32:47 [jwatt]

...I agree with some of his points including having a good URI syntax

21:32:56 [jwatt]

...but I think param is more user friendly

21:33:22 [jwatt]

...and the markup is then much more clear than using encoded URI strings

21:33:43 [jwatt]

ED: I agree it's clearer

21:33:59 [jwatt]

...<iframe> doesn't take <param> today

21:34:03 [jwatt]

DS: no, but it could

21:36:10 [jwatt]

[out of time]

21:36:28 [jwatt]

CL: you should keep pushing on params

21:36:35 [Zakim]

- +33.9.52.49.aaaa

21:37:50 [Zakim]

-ed

21:38:02 [jwatt]

Zakim, generate minutes

21:38:02 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'generate minutes', jwatt

21:38:21 [jwatt]

RSSAgent, generate minutes

21:38:32 [jwatt]

Zakim, make minutes

21:38:32 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'make minutes', jwatt

21:38:43 [ed]

RRSAgent, make minutes

21:38:43 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/30-svg-minutes.html ed

21:38:51 [jwatt]

thanks

21:39:55 [jwatt]

trackbot: end telcon

21:39:55 [trackbot]

Zakim, list attendees

21:39:55 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been Shepazu, [IPcaller], ed, +33.9.52.49.aaaa, anthony, jwatt

21:39:56 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

21:39:56 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/30-svg-minutes.html trackbot

21:39:57 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, bye

21:39:57 [RRSAgent]

I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/30-svg-actions.rdf :

21:39:57 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: ed to split types-dom-02-f.svg into two tests, one part testing animVal, one testing the rest (errata parts) [1]

21:39:57 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/30-svg-irc#T20-31-01

21:39:57 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: ChrisL to split the test [2]

21:39:57 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/30-svg-irc#T20-46-21

21:39:57 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Chris to reply to Helder explaining why we would prefer not to receive patch files [3]

21:39:57 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/30-svg-irc#T21-28-37