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 length	painting-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 units	text-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