IRC log of svg on 2012-06-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:58:14 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #svg
20:58:14 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:58:16 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:58:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #svg
20:58:18 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
20:58:18 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see GA_SVGWG(SVG1)5:00PM already started
20:58:19 [trackbot]
Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
20:58:19 [trackbot]
Date: 14 June 2012
20:58:50 [Zakim]
20:58:58 [ed]
20:59:02 [Cyril]
zakim, ??P11 is me
20:59:02 [Zakim]
+Cyril; got it
20:59:52 [Zakim]
21:00:06 [Cyril]
zakim, ??P6 was birtles
21:00:06 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P6 was birtles', Cyril
21:00:11 [Zakim]
21:00:18 [Cyril]
zakim, ??P6 is birtles
21:00:18 [Zakim]
+birtles; got it
21:00:49 [Tav]
Tav has joined #svg
21:02:14 [Zakim]
+ +61.2.980.5.aaaa
21:02:36 [krit]
krit has joined #svg
21:02:40 [nikos]
Zakim, 61.2.980 is me
21:02:40 [Zakim]
sorry, nikos, I do not recognize a party named '61.2.980'
21:02:49 [nikos]
Zakim, +61.2.980 is me
21:02:49 [Zakim]
+nikos; got it
21:03:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.832.aabb
21:03:46 [krit]
Zakim, aabb is me
21:03:46 [Zakim]
+krit; got it
21:04:07 [krit]
nikos: no party?
21:04:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.612.789.aacc
21:04:46 [Tav]
zakim, +1.612 is me
21:04:46 [Zakim]
+Tav; got it
21:04:52 [nikos]
heh. It's a pretty exclusive party
21:05:27 [birtles]
ed, are you still having trouble joining?
21:07:31 [Tav]
zakim, who is here?
21:07:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Cyril, birtles, nikos, krit, Tav
21:10:03 [Zakim]
21:10:27 [ed]
Zakim, ??P1 is me
21:10:27 [Zakim]
+ed; got it
21:11:02 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #svg
21:11:12 [ed]
scribeNick: ed
21:11:16 [ed]
topic: Status of Shepherd integration / Test The Web Forward
21:11:28 [ed]
21:11:43 [ed]
DS: heycam wanted to work on that, not sure if there's any progress on it
21:11:46 [Zakim]
21:12:15 [ed]
...the focus for svg is for css transforms, we can do it with the css testsuite at the moment
21:12:23 [ed]
... and then transfer the tests later
21:13:10 [ed]
ED: is there any info on how to contribute on the TTWF site?
21:13:24 [ed]
DS: there will be a presentation on how to do that
21:14:45 [ed]
ED: just making sure the materials will be available online as the event takes place, to enable people participating even though they're not physically there
21:15:23 [ed]
DS: I will publish them right after my presention
21:15:40 [ed]
21:16:59 [ed]
TB: peter linss is looking at integrating some of the changes I made for converting html/css test to svg
21:17:33 [ed]
... it's perhaps not generic enough, my code was for the submitted adobe tests
21:19:01 [ed]
ED: so there was a question about whether a pass on a test (regardless of the format) should be a pass for that feature or not
21:19:32 [ed]
TB: i think you have to have separate results, e.g for transforms in svg and for transforms in html/css
21:20:02 [ed]
... I don't think any of the browsers support the new svg things for transforms
21:20:24 [krit]
s/new svg things for transforms/new transforms things for svg/
21:21:05 [ed]
ED: anything else needed from us in time for the event?
21:21:17 [ed]
TB: would be good to have a couple of approved tests in our repo
21:21:23 [ed]
DS: don't think that's necessary
21:21:37 [ed]
... we can use the same process as the csswg uses for review/approval
21:22:00 [ed]
... can=need
21:22:23 [ed]
TB: we used to require tests to have a reviewer, are we giving up on that?
21:22:33 [ed]
DS: no, css requires that too
21:22:59 [ed]
... you have a creator, a reviewer, and a third person to approve it
21:23:22 [ed]
... we could say reviewer and approver could be the same person if we want
21:23:39 [ed]
TB: how does the test become approved?
21:23:56 [ed]
DS: the shepherd tool moves the approved tests to another directory
21:24:27 [ed]
TB: right now we have nothing in our approved directory
21:24:39 [ed]
... shouldn't we have a few in there?
21:24:49 [ed]
DS: I think so yes
21:25:07 [ed]
... only a few people have committed tests so far
21:26:27 [ed]
... I'll look at reviewing and approving some of the tests
21:26:50 [ed]
TB: i'll move some of my tests to the submitted folder
21:27:01 [ed]
DS: right, only those will be picked up by shepherd
21:27:58 [ed]
ACTION: Dirk to review (and approve) Tav's submitted svg2-tests
21:27:59 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-3308 - Review (and approve) Tav's submitted svg2-tests [on Dirk Schulze - due 2012-06-21].
21:28:56 [ed]
ED: is this the template to use?
21:29:08 [ed]
TB: yes
21:29:18 [ChrisL]
21:29:22 [ed]
DS: all tests must be BSD-licensed, right?
21:29:32 [ed]
CL: yes
21:29:54 [ChrisL]
21:30:34 [ed]
TB: how does it work with linking to spec sections, since the spec is still pretty much in flux?
21:30:34 [ChrisL]
template should be the same as
21:30:59 [ed]
DS: you should link to the toplevel section
21:31:34 [ed]
CL: so the file ED linked to isn't the latest template, should be revised
21:31:46 [ed]
TB: I thought we agreed to allow link elements
21:32:16 [ed]
DS: I think we have a resolution for that already
21:32:44 [jun]
jun has joined #svg
21:33:18 [ed]
CL: for link peter said it was easier for him to import if it was in the html namespace
21:33:35 [ed]
... this is all documented in the wikipage I linked to
21:33:54 [ed]
... this is based on discussions with peter last week
21:34:20 [ed]
DS: so the wikipage represents what we want, ok
21:35:16 [ed]
ACTION: tav to update the svg2 test template to be in sync with the agreed format in
21:35:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-3309 - Update the svg2 test template to be in sync with the agreed format in [on Tavmjong Bah - due 2012-06-21].
21:36:30 [ed]
BB: did we come to a conclusion on the format for the reference images?
21:36:36 [ed]
CL: we did discuss that
21:37:36 [ed]
... if possible we agreed that if it's easy to do solid green for pass for example then that's preferred, but there are cases where that can give false positives and cases where it's very difficult, like filters
21:38:19 [ed]
BB: right... another suggestion is to use one standard text string for tests with text
21:38:44 [ed]
TB: I have objections to having just green rects
21:39:17 [ed]
BB: in gecko we use tens of thousands of tests, it's easy to quickly see pass if the pass images are always green
21:40:35 [ed]
DS: if you see green it's passed, if you see red it's failed, basic principle
21:40:44 [Tav]
21:40:58 [ed]
TB: here are the transforms tests i wrote a while ago
21:41:04 [ed]
... red indicates failure
21:41:14 [ed]
... and you can tell what's being tested
21:41:28 [ed]
BB: how important is it to know what's being tested?
21:41:38 [ed]
TB: in inkscape it was useful, to show someone
21:42:11 [krit]
21:42:22 [ed]
BB: if inkscape had a testsuite with 10k tests, then it's still not easy
21:42:45 [ed]
DS: every test is specified to test one specific thing, it's testing a part of the spec
21:43:00 [krit]
21:43:13 [ed]
DS: for that test it's just the matrix value
21:43:26 [ed]
... it has a red rect behind that will show if there's something wrong
21:43:40 [ed]
TB: but you can't tell what it's testing just by looking at it
21:43:52 [ed]
DS: the filename tells you, and the test metadata
21:44:27 [ed]
... every test should describe what it's testing inside the metadata
21:44:36 [ed]
... and the pass criteria
21:45:26 [ed]
BB: one difference is that you should be able to look at a test and see what it's testing, but that's not so important in an automated system
21:45:46 [krit]
21:45:49 [ed]
DS: right, because then the automated engine doesn't care what it's testing, just compares the results
21:46:23 [ed]
... it's up to the author to provide the information
21:46:31 [ed]
... in the metadata, but it should be there
21:47:01 [ed]
... I think it's quite clear what it's testing
21:47:21 [ed]
TB: what do people think?
21:47:52 [ed]
CL: valuable to run automated tests, but when you get the list of failed tests it's useful if a human can quickly tell whats wrong
21:48:07 [ed]
... and then it's useful to know what those tests are testing exactly
21:48:38 [ed]
... this means we should have welldocumented testcases
21:48:49 [ed]
DS: that's why we do review on them
21:49:20 [ed]
TB: maybe we should have them separate? it's nice to have to some visual tests (like in SVG 1.1)
21:49:45 [ed]
DS: we have reftests that can do that, two images have to look the same, otherwise it's a fail
21:50:19 [Zakim]
21:50:36 [ed]
... I agree that visual tests are good, and that if you see red it's failed
21:50:53 [Zakim]
21:51:11 [krit]
21:51:23 [ed]
DS: here is a test, two rects...
21:52:14 [krit]
21:52:25 [ed]
DS: this next test fails in all browsers
21:53:16 [ed]
... anyway, we can also discuss further on the mailinglist
21:53:22 [ChrisL]
the 'show reference' link is broken btw
21:53:38 [ed]
... and it means others can follow the discussion
21:53:55 [ed]
CL: i'd like to say another thing about the template
21:54:06 [ed]
... the template doesn't use a particular font
21:54:24 [ed]
... which means every implentation may use a different font
21:54:42 [ed]
... suggest we standardize on a particular WOFF font
21:55:03 [ed]
DS: but we don't need that with reftests, because it ensures the font is the same on both reference and testcase
21:55:20 [ed]
... AHEM is often used in css tests
21:55:31 [ed]
CL: ahem is not always useful though
21:55:55 [ed]
DS: I think it's wrong to require a particular font
21:56:03 [ed]
CL: why is consistency bad?
21:56:16 [ed]
DS: but it doesn't matter, because we have reftest
21:56:57 [ed]
CL: what is the problem? we've had unreadable text, and people assuming a particular default font
21:57:11 [ed]
... if you're testing svg it's not going to reflow text for example
21:57:29 [ed]
DS: if you add more dependencies then that's an additional thing that can fail
21:57:54 [ed]
CL: all browsers support this, explain why the pass criteria would make it fail?
21:58:16 [ed]
DS: but you add unnecessary complexity
21:58:26 [ed]
CL: so should we also take out the metadata?
21:58:39 [ed]
DS: that's different
21:59:40 [Zakim]
22:00:25 [ed]
ED: I think it's quite nice to have consistent fonts used throughout the testsuite
22:00:39 [Zakim]
22:01:02 [ed]
... looking back at the SVG testsuite, yes svgfonts/webfonts is additional complexity, but it's also nice to get consistent rendering across platforms
22:01:48 [ed]
DS: webfonts are a requirement or just something we require in svg?
22:01:53 [Zakim]
22:02:16 [krit]
s/we require/we support/
22:02:17 [ed]
TB: inkscape doesn't support webfonts
22:03:09 [ed]
DS: the problem is that if webfonts isn't a requirement for svg
22:03:21 [ed]
CL: we have resolved that webfonts is a requirement for svg
22:03:47 [ChrisL]
s/webfonts is/webfonts, and woff, are/
22:04:38 [ed]
ED: so, can we agree on having a consistent font used when possible?
22:04:59 [ed]
DS: don't want to require webfonts for the tests
22:05:45 [ed]
TB: dirks tests are simple, don't require labeling, but svg1.1 tests are more visual
22:05:51 [ed]
... with labels and so on
22:06:03 [ed]
nikos: it's a risk if the layout obscures the text
22:06:06 [Zakim]
22:06:16 [ed]
... you don't necessaryly know the output you're going to get
22:06:27 [ed]
CL: right, you might get unexpected results
22:06:43 [ed]
TB: but the risk is pretty small, but I prefer the svg11 tests though
22:07:24 [ed]
... all it would take is to put in a style section in the template to use a webfont as the default font
22:07:28 [ChrisL]
yes it would just take one @font-face rule plus a font family and size on the main group
22:07:39 [ed]
TB: inkscape would ignore it
22:09:25 [ed]
(discussion on inkscape and testing with references)
22:09:41 [ChrisL]
so you would no longer need to make speccial inkscape test versions with all text elements removed
22:10:06 [ed]
DS: i'm not strongly opposed to adding WOFF fonts, I just think that we should reduce the tests as much as possible
22:10:56 [ed]
CL: that's why I pushed hard for pass criteria, because it doesn't matter if the WOFF is supported or not if the only thing that needs to be done is to render a rect for example
22:11:24 [ed]
... unless the pass criteria says you have to look exactly like a given font
22:11:29 [jet]
jet has joined #svg
22:12:21 [ed]
DS: for automated tests it's still additional complexity, requirements for passing the test
22:12:57 [ed]
CL: but if we have flags, then we should just not add the flag "need webfont" if it's not necessary
22:13:22 [ed]
DS: how do you style the elements?
22:13:32 [ed]
CL: that's why it should be in the template
22:13:49 [ed]
DS: but we should only have that if it's needed for passing the test
22:14:00 [ed]
... don't think we can agree on having this right now
22:14:53 [ed]
CL: I don't accept your arguments
22:15:19 [ed]
TB: don't care so much either way
22:15:19 [ChrisL]
s/arguments/arguments that unflagged tests would fail/
22:15:43 [ed]
nikos: no strong opinion from me, but it should be in the template i think so that it's no risk to be missed
22:16:58 [ed]
ED: i'd be fine with having two templates, one for tests that use text in the visual output, and one that doesn't (where the webfont isn't needed)
22:17:05 [ed]
CL: that would be ok with me too
22:17:28 [ed]
... would that be fine with you DS?
22:17:42 [ed]
DS: yes
22:18:30 [ed]
TB: ok, so two templates, one for automated tests (without the webfont), one for visual tests (that have the webfont)
22:18:53 [ed]
... I'll make those templates, what font do we want to use?
22:19:03 [ed]
CL: freesans would be good
22:19:45 [ed]
DS: do we also want to have other fonts, serif, bold etc?
22:20:12 [ed]
CL: probably, but not in the template maybe, but it's good to have a library of fonts that can be used
22:20:16 [ChrisL]
<!-- your test suould turn this rect green--><rect x= y= width= height= />
22:22:30 [ed]
topic: strokebbox
22:22:43 [ed]
DS: I'd like to add getting the stroked bbox to the spec, is that fine?
22:22:55 [ed]
CL: yes, we agreed to do that, should be fine
22:23:37 [ed]
DS: other kinds of bboxes too, like markers, filters etc?
22:23:48 [ed]
CL: we tried to limit it to stroke I think
22:24:28 [ed]
... anything that affects strokes should say how it affects the strokebbox
22:24:40 [ed]
DS: should markers be included?
22:24:50 [ed]
CL: possibly
22:25:40 [ed]
DS: ok, i'll try to do this next week (don't need an action)
22:25:45 [Zakim]
22:25:48 [Zakim]
22:26:01 [Zakim]
22:26:02 [Zakim]
22:26:09 [Zakim]
22:26:11 [Zakim]
GA_SVGWG(SVG1)5:00PM has ended
22:26:11 [Zakim]
Attendees were Cyril, birtles, +61.2.980.5.aaaa, nikos, +1.415.832.aabb, krit, +1.612.789.aacc, Tav, ed, ChrisL
22:27:55 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #svg
22:28:21 [krit]
krit has joined #svg
22:28:29 [krit]
krit has left #svg
22:32:55 [ChrisL]
rrsagent, make minutes
22:32:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisL
22:56:39 [birtles]
birtles has joined #svg
23:06:56 [jet]
jet has joined #svg