IRC log of svg on 2010-04-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:28:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #svg
14:28:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc
14:28:51 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:28:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #svg
14:28:53 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
14:28:53 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()10:30AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
14:28:54 [trackbot]
Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
14:28:54 [trackbot]
Date: 12 April 2010
14:29:30 [Zakim]
GA_SVGWG()10:30AM has now started
14:29:31 [Zakim]
+Shepazu
14:29:56 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:30:04 [ed]
Zakim, [IP is me
14:30:04 [Zakim]
+ed; got it
14:31:15 [Zakim]
+ChrisL
14:31:45 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:32:18 [anthony]
Zakim, [IP is me
14:32:18 [Zakim]
+anthony; got it
14:32:32 [ChrisL]
hi
14:42:22 [ChrisL]
http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2010/index.php?p=en/location
14:44:15 [anthony]
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Rue+du+Fort+35+1060+Brussels+Belgium&sll=50.828325,4.34221&sspn=0.006736,0.01929&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Fortstraat+35,+Sint-Gillis+1060+Saint-Gilles,+Brussels-Capital+Region,+Belgium&ll=50.864478,4.457016&spn=0.215389,0.617294&z=11
14:45:24 [ChrisL]
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=0,0,1314856789320127029&fb=1&hq=microsoft&hnear=brussels&daddr=Culliganlaan+1,+1831+Machelen,+Belgium&geocode=16487724983740769806,50.884409,4.449002&ei=8zHDS_2FLI_8_Aanif3VBg&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=directions-to&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQngIwAA
14:49:29 [ed]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Test_Suite_1.1F2
14:49:36 [ed]
topic: testsuite
14:50:21 [Zakim]
+??P3
14:50:42 [jwatt]
jwatt has joined #svg
14:51:04 [jwatt]
Zakim, who's here?
14:51:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Shepazu, ed, ChrisL, anthony, ??P3
14:51:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jwatt, Zakim, RRSAgent, ed, ChrisL, shepazu, anthony, ed_work, trackbot
14:51:07 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
14:51:24 [jwatt]
Zakim, P3 is me
14:51:24 [Zakim]
sorry, jwatt, I do not recognize a party named 'P3'
14:51:30 [jwatt]
Zakim, ??P3 is me
14:51:30 [Zakim]
+jwatt; got it
14:51:51 [patrickd]
patrickd has joined #svg
14:51:58 [ed]
ED: so, approve the tests labeled as "reviewed by CL, approve?"
14:52:13 [ed]
ALL: yes, go ahead
14:52:34 [anthony]
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=0,0,1314856789320127029&fb=1&hq=microsoft&hnear=brussels&daddr=Culliganlaan+1,+1831+Machelen,+Belgium&geocode=16487724983740769806,50.884409,4.449002&ei=8zHDS_2FLI_8_Aanif3VBg&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=directions-to&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQngIwAA
14:53:19 [ed]
ACTION: ed to mark the "reviewed by CL, approve?" tests as approved, and generate updated reference images
14:53:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2756 - Mark the "reviewed by CL, approve?" tests as approved, and generate updated reference images [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-04-19].
14:53:31 [ChrisL]
template fixed
14:53:57 [anthony]
scribe: anthony
14:54:06 [anthony]
ScribeNick: anthony
14:54:29 [shepazu_]
shepazu_ has joined #svg
14:54:46 [anthony]
ED: I think the grammar for the elliptical has been fixed
14:54:52 [ed]
paths-data-20-f.svg
14:54:52 [anthony]
... I added a test for it
14:54:58 [anthony]
... would like some one to view the test
14:55:23 [anthony]
DS: Jeff Schiller had more to say about the syntax on the mailing list
14:55:32 [anthony]
ED: My update was after his email
14:55:42 [anthony]
... it covers white space after the first and second flags
14:56:12 [anthony]
DS: We could mention at least in the context of SVG 2.0
14:56:30 [anthony]
... a lacuna value for any given coordinate that is out of range
14:56:35 [anthony]
... can say it is assumed to be zero
14:56:43 [anthony]
ED: I'm not sure really
14:56:50 [anthony]
... if you want to go with 1 or 0 then you have a bisa
14:56:58 [anthony]
s/bisa/bias/
14:57:16 [anthony]
DS: It's only cases where the arc flags are messed up
14:57:28 [anthony]
... what do you do with it?
14:57:39 [anthony]
ED: We just check if its 1 or 0 that's all
14:57:44 [anthony]
... if it's say 2
14:57:49 [anthony]
... we just say it's invalid
14:57:59 [anthony]
... you can't really parse it as anything else
14:58:04 [anthony]
DS: We should have it do something
14:58:37 [anthony]
... does the spec say what to do if the grammar isn't followed?
14:59:02 [anthony]
ED: It says what to do if the segment is not valid
14:59:09 [anthony]
... you render up to the valid point
14:59:26 [anthony]
... that's what is mentioned in 1.1 anyway
14:59:42 [anthony]
... render up to the last valid segement
14:59:49 [anthony]
... then continue with the rest of the document
14:59:55 [anthony]
... that's what the tests I wrote do
15:00:07 [anthony]
... and the tests from Microsoft
15:00:36 [anthony]
PD: I'm pretty sure that the spec says for this case
15:00:42 [anthony]
... exactly what Erik was saying
15:00:52 [anthony]
DS: I want to make sure this is captured in SVG 2.0
15:01:19 [anthony]
... I'll start an issue
15:01:27 [anthony]
... to make sure this is covered
15:01:57 [anthony]
ED: Any volunteers to review the test?
15:02:04 [anthony]
PD: We can review it
15:02:53 [anthony]
ACTION: Patrick to Review paths-data-20-f.svg
15:02:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2757 - Review paths-data-20-f.svg [on Patrick Dengler - due 2010-04-19].
15:03:22 [anthony]
Topic: F2F Meeting
15:03:33 [anthony]
ED: Do we have a sign up form?
15:03:39 [anthony]
CL: No, I'll do that today
15:03:44 [ChrisL]
i will make one today
15:04:27 [shepazu_]
trackbot, pointer?
15:04:27 [trackbot]
Sorry, shepazu_, I don't understand 'trackbot, pointer?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
15:04:59 [anthony]
Topic: FX Force
15:05:14 [anthony]
ED: We should schedule a telcon time
15:05:19 [anthony]
... to review some of the issues
15:05:26 [anthony]
DS: We should ask them
15:05:41 [anthony]
ED: I can send an email to ask them to do it Thursday next week
15:06:14 [anthony]
PD: I'm not getting any information on the discussion
15:06:22 [anthony]
DS: Probably not on the mailing list
15:06:32 [shepazu_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/
15:06:33 [anthony]
... I'll drop you a link
15:07:07 [anthony]
DS: Just thinking about the dynamics about how this would play out
15:07:22 [anthony]
... we have come to a conclusion about image fit
15:07:59 [anthony]
... and then we go to the CSS WG and they get frustrated because we've had these private discussions
15:08:07 [anthony]
... we shouldn't talk about it in the groups
15:08:16 [anthony]
... and do it on the FX list
15:08:46 [anthony]
ACTION: Erik to Suggest a new telcon time for the FX Task Force group
15:08:46 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2758 - Suggest a new telcon time for the FX Task Force group [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-04-19].
15:08:55 [shepazu_]
RRSAgent, pointer?
15:08:55 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-08-55
15:10:34 [anthony]
Topic: Wording on radial gradient focal points
15:10:36 [anthony]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010AprJun/0016.html
15:10:49 [anthony]
AG: I've reviewed the test
15:10:58 [anthony]
... and the test looks fine to me
15:11:23 [anthony]
ED: Can we go ahead and approve the test?
15:11:37 [anthony]
ALL: Ok
15:13:08 [anthony]
AG: I suggested some extra wording
15:13:21 [anthony]
... to clarify the spec
15:13:30 [anthony]
ED: It is a bit wordy
15:13:51 [anthony]
... but it's sort of saying the same thing else where in xlink:href I think
15:14:09 [anthony]
... definitely something that could be interpreted in two different ways
15:14:59 [anthony]
... what does everything else thing of the additional wording?
15:15:08 [anthony]
CL: I think it would be good to put it in 1.1 SE
15:15:12 [anthony]
ED: It's more clear to me
15:15:25 [anthony]
... where should it go? In 'fx' or in 'fy' as well
15:16:27 [anthony]
AG: So, I had written the wording to go into the 'fx' attribute
15:16:33 [anthony]
... can be referenced by 'fy'
15:17:12 [anthony]
ACTION: Anthony to Add the the proposed wording for 'fx' clarification to SVG 1.1 2nd Edition
15:17:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2759 - Add the the proposed wording for 'fx' clarification to SVG 1.1 2nd Edition [on Anthony Grasso - due 2010-04-19].
15:17:43 [patrickd]
http://www.microsoft.com/ebc/brussels.mspx
15:18:00 [anthony]
Topic: F2F Meeting
15:18:12 [anthony]
PD: There's a link to the location
15:18:21 [anthony]
ED: We have a registration page
15:18:23 [anthony]
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/19480/SVGBrussels/
15:18:37 [anthony]
CL: Doug you asked if we could have a joint meeting with LGM
15:19:04 [anthony]
DS: The last I heard from them that they understood that we wanted have a meeting with them
15:19:08 [anthony]
... during the conference
15:19:21 [anthony]
... what we had intended was people from LGM to participate in the F2F
15:19:31 [anthony]
CL: Seems like we need to close a loop on that
15:19:36 [anthony]
... I'd be happy either way
15:19:49 [anthony]
... or for a panel and a meeting to occur
15:20:04 [anthony]
DS: I was going to say we could explain how the process works
15:20:17 [anthony]
... and see if we can get people participating from the community
15:20:31 [anthony]
... or at least get an understanding of why things take time
15:20:36 [anthony]
... but I'll follow through with them
15:20:49 [ChrisL]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVGF2F_2010_LGM
15:21:16 [ChrisL]
so we can add hotel etc onto that
15:22:09 [anthony]
Topic: SVG 1.1 SE Push
15:22:21 [anthony]
CL: We have an implementation report
15:22:25 [anthony]
... which is largely complete
15:22:26 [ChrisL]
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/implementation-report.html
15:22:37 [anthony]
... I've been maintaining that
15:22:49 [anthony]
... updating every time new versions of implementations come out
15:22:56 [anthony]
... we only want one pass per test
15:22:57 [ChrisL]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Test_Suite_1.1F2
15:23:13 [anthony]
... Erik can you think of specific tests we need to add to the report?
15:23:19 [anthony]
ED: There are some
15:23:37 [anthony]
... path-data-20-f.svg
15:23:44 [anthony]
CL: It's not on the wiki page
15:23:48 [anthony]
... need to add it to both of them
15:23:59 [anthony]
ED: Do we have reviews of the tests that are on the first page?
15:24:01 [anthony]
CL: Yes
15:24:06 [anthony]
... I think they are all reviewed
15:24:14 [anthony]
... and they are all approved as well
15:24:23 [anthony]
ED: Just checking that now
15:24:32 [ed]
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/svgdom-over-01-f.svg
15:24:40 [anthony]
... so one of the tests I made for the spec is unreviewed
15:25:02 [anthony]
... and the funny thing with that one is it conflicts with the one of the submitted Microsoft tests
15:25:13 [anthony]
CL: In that case Patrick should review it
15:25:30 [ed]
struct-svg-01-f.svg
15:25:41 [anthony]
CL: That needs to go into to the test report as well
15:25:50 [ChrisL]
svgdom-over-01-f.svg
15:25:55 [anthony]
... and the SVG DOM test needs to go to the test report as well
15:26:35 [anthony]
ACTION: Patrick to Review the svgdom-over-01-f.svg and struct-svg-01-f.svg tests and resolve any of the conflicts
15:26:35 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2760 - Review the svgdom-over-01-f.svg and struct-svg-01-f.svg tests and resolve any of the conflicts [on Patrick Dengler - due 2010-04-19].
15:26:46 [anthony]
CL: any passes for the tests we are adding?
15:26:51 [anthony]
ED: Batik pass the first one
15:27:00 [anthony]
... Webkit and Inkscape fail
15:27:09 [anthony]
... Firefox pass and Opera passes
15:27:13 [anthony]
... the second one
15:27:19 [anthony]
... Opera 10.50 passes that one
15:27:26 [anthony]
... and partials on everyone else
15:27:56 [anthony]
... so who is going to update the implementation report?
15:28:01 [anthony]
CL: I'll do that anyway
15:28:06 [anthony]
... and update the results
15:28:20 [anthony]
DS: Are you testing Webkit Safari?
15:28:39 [anthony]
CL: No a nightly build
15:28:47 [anthony]
DS: Should we test Chrome as well?
15:29:02 [anthony]
CL: We should. In this case we are just after passes
15:29:18 [anthony]
... the Webkit rep on the CSS WG said not to bother running Safari
15:29:26 [anthony]
... but just to test it on Webkit
15:29:40 [anthony]
DS: I could test it on Safari and on Chrome
15:30:17 [anthony]
ACTION: Chris to Add svgdom-over-01-f.svg and struct-svg-01-f.svg to the implementation report
15:30:17 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2761 - Add svgdom-over-01-f.svg and struct-svg-01-f.svg to the implementation report [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-04-19].
15:30:59 [anthony]
ED: Do we need to do anything else?
15:31:09 [anthony]
... I think we need to get the Test Suite fulling working
15:31:54 [anthony]
CL: Apart from the test suite I think the spec needs to be up to date
15:32:04 [anthony]
ED: There are a few editing actions
15:32:19 [anthony]
PD: I still don't have my editing credentials
15:32:31 [anthony]
DS: I'll look into that today
15:33:45 [ed]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Brussels%2C_Belgium_F2F
15:34:43 [ed]
http://www.microsoft.com/ebc/brussels.mspx
15:36:33 [ChrisL]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/products/1
15:36:40 [anthony]
ED: Would it be helpful to gather together all the editing actions
15:36:43 [anthony]
... and send out emails
15:37:01 [anthony]
CL: Some of the actions can only be done after publication
15:37:20 [anthony]
... JWatt there's actions on ZoomEvent and an action on Text
15:37:26 [anthony]
... to propose some wording
15:38:25 [anthony]
... we are very close
15:38:32 [anthony]
... to completing
15:38:41 [anthony]
... we have 8 open issues
15:39:00 [anthony]
... we either fix them or push them to another spec
15:39:25 [ChrisL]
close ISSUE-2017
15:39:25 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2017 Find sane values for getSubStringLength and selectSubString closed
15:39:26 [anthony]
ED: Issue 2017 we can close because we were in agreement
15:39:29 [ed]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2017
15:40:23 [ChrisL]
issue-2259?
15:40:23 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2259 -- Inconsistent use of <uri> symbol -- RAISED
15:40:23 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2259
15:40:52 [anthony]
ISSUE-2299?
15:40:52 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2299 -- Text on a path layout rules unclear wrt startpoint-on-the-path and text-anchor -- RAISED
15:40:52 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2299
15:41:08 [anthony]
ED: We can probably push that to SVG 2.0
15:41:22 [anthony]
... it's not going to be small change if we start trying to tweak the wording there
15:41:29 [ChrisL]
once i had added tests or determined we don't need tests then i can close action-2697 and thus issue-2259
15:41:31 [anthony]
... I'll update that to be SVG 2.0 then
15:41:40 [anthony]
ISSUE-2305
15:41:42 [anthony]
ISSUE-2305?
15:41:42 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2305 -- Line caps drawing on zero length lines -- RAISED
15:41:42 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2305
15:41:49 [anthony]
CL: We have a test for that
15:41:58 [ChrisL]
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/painting-stroke-10-t.svg
15:42:39 [anthony]
ED: I remember seeing one more test with the zero length lines
15:42:57 [shepazu_]
agenda+ Canvas
15:43:46 [anthony]
ED: Maybe if someone can take an action to write the test
15:43:52 [anthony]
... not sure if it's blocking publication
15:43:57 [anthony]
... there was a test submitted
15:44:09 [anthony]
... by the guy that originally reported the issue
15:44:55 [anthony]
CL: I can do that
15:44:57 [anthony]
... that's fine
15:45:11 [anthony]
ED: There is one point in that test case is unclear
15:45:44 [anthony]
... when the length matches the end of the line
15:45:54 [anthony]
... so that's the reason why one of the lines at the end of the test case
15:46:09 [anthony]
... was there in some and not there in others
15:46:16 [anthony]
... or break it up into several tests
15:46:38 [shepazu_]
agenda+ makers
15:46:51 [anthony]
ACTION: Chris to Write a test for ISSUE-2305
15:46:51 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2762 - Write a test for ISSUE-2305 [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-04-19].
15:47:30 [anthony]
ISSUE-2309?
15:47:30 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2309 -- Investigate impact of changing SVG 1.1 second edition to reference CSS2.1 -- RAISED
15:47:30 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2309
15:47:59 [anthony]
ED: I think we've said before it would be a too bigger change to make
15:48:10 [anthony]
... there have been some changes between 2.0 and 2.1
15:48:16 [ed]
s/bigger/big of a/
15:48:31 [anthony]
... such as clip and web fonts being dropped
15:49:01 [anthony]
... so if want to really reference 2.1 we really have to investigate that
15:49:29 [anthony]
CL: We can't really reference 2.1 because it's not going to be finished until the end of the year
15:49:52 [anthony]
... there are a few things we need to reference 2.0 because they are not in 2.1
15:50:03 [anthony]
... the specificity of style attribute changed
15:50:39 [anthony]
... we don't want SVG 1.1 SE waiting fro CSS 2.1 to be done
15:50:46 [anthony]
ED: We seem to know what to put in the spec
15:51:27 [anthony]
ACTION: Chris to Add wording to the specification to account for the differences between CSS 2.0 and 2.1
15:51:27 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2763 - Add wording to the specification to account for the differences between CSS 2.0 and 2.1 [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-04-19].
15:51:57 [anthony]
Topic: Markers
15:52:11 [anthony]
PD: Should a marker receive an event?
15:52:28 [anthony]
PD: A connecting line would get an event
15:52:54 [anthony]
DS: If you click on any part of a shape including a marker the event is on the end element which the marker is applied
15:52:59 [anthony]
PD: Styling
15:53:31 [anthony]
... the spec says it should style against the origination rather than the instantiation
15:53:44 [anthony]
CL: In general we have the same styling as CSS
15:53:57 [anthony]
... there is one place we tried to do that differently
15:54:07 [anthony]
... which was in <use> and <symbol>
15:55:40 [anthony]
DS: I think what should have been done with markers
15:56:09 [anthony]
... is basically what was done with <use>
15:56:14 [anthony]
... and we can't change it now
15:56:34 [anthony]
... we could add a set of properties that deals with markers
15:56:43 [anthony]
CL: We can already do that with vector effects
15:57:48 [anthony]
... I think we should leave markers for SVG 1.1 SE as is
15:57:58 [anthony]
... then for 2.0 we should make them more like <use>
15:58:19 [ChrisL]
also, for SVG 2.0 I want to drop markers and add a polymarker element
15:59:15 [anthony]
CL: Markers would effectively be deprecated
15:59:46 [anthony]
DS: Could you change it without causing backwards compatibility problems
16:00:05 [anthony]
CL: I'd rather replace it with different functionality
16:00:18 [anthony]
PD: Would it fix styling problem?
16:00:24 [anthony]
DS: Yes
16:01:06 [anthony]
Topic: Canvas
16:01:25 [anthony]
s/Canvas/Canvas and processing meeting/
16:01:46 [anthony]
DS: Processing is a high level language that was ported to Java
16:01:56 [patrickd]
patrickd: (I have to exit; hard stop)
16:02:01 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
16:07:33 [Zakim]
-ChrisL
16:07:34 [Zakim]
-jwatt
16:07:35 [Zakim]
-ed
16:07:37 [Zakim]
-anthony
16:07:44 [Zakim]
-Shepazu
16:07:45 [Zakim]
GA_SVGWG()10:30AM has ended
16:07:46 [Zakim]
Attendees were Shepazu, [IPcaller], ed, ChrisL, anthony, [Microsoft], jwatt
16:09:03 [anthony]
trackbot, end telcon
16:09:03 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:09:03 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:09:04 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:09:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-minutes.html trackbot
16:09:05 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
I see 8 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-actions.rdf :
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ed to mark the "reviewed by CL, approve?" tests as approved, and generate updated reference images [1]
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T14-53-19
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Patrick to Review paths-data-20-f.svg [2]
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-02-53
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Erik to Suggest a new telcon time for the FX Task Force group [3]
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-08-46
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Anthony to Add the the proposed wording for 'fx' clarification to SVG 1.1 2nd Edition [4]
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-17-12
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Patrick to Review the svgdom-over-01-f.svg and struct-svg-01-f.svg tests and resolve any of the conflicts [5]
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-26-35
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Chris to Add svgdom-over-01-f.svg and struct-svg-01-f.svg to the implementation report [6]
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-30-17
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Chris to Write a test for ISSUE-2305 [7]
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-46-51
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Chris to Add wording to the specification to account for the differences between CSS 2.0 and 2.1 [8]
16:09:05 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/12-svg-irc#T15-51-27