IRC log of svg on 2016-04-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:29:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #svg
20:29:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:29:49 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:29:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #svg
20:29:51 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
20:29:51 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
20:29:52 [trackbot]
Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
20:29:52 [trackbot]
Date: 28 April 2016
20:31:22 [Tavmjong]
20:31:52 [nikos]
present+ nikos
20:31:58 [nikos]
chair: Nikos
20:32:06 [nikos]
20:32:25 [Tavmjong]
present +Tav
20:32:34 [Tavmjong]
present+ Tav
20:32:53 [stakagi]
present+ stakagi
20:33:10 [shepazu]
present+ shepazu
20:34:22 [AmeliaBR]
present+ AmeliaBR
20:36:47 [AmeliaBR]
scribe: AmeliaBR
20:37:09 [AmeliaBR]
TOPIC: London F2F recap & SVG 2 status for CR
20:37:23 [nikos]
20:37:44 [AmeliaBR]
NA: I sent out an email, since it was only a small group there.
20:38:05 [AmeliaBR]
... We got a lot done, but will also discovered a number of issues during the review & clean-up.
20:38:25 [shepazu]
agenda+ CR timeline
20:38:27 [AmeliaBR]
... We've got ~67 open issues on GitHub. Mostly editorial, don't need a resolution.
20:39:13 [AmeliaBR]
... I wanted to get people's ideas about best plan for moving towards CR.
20:40:13 [AmeliaBR]
... Option 1 is to spend next few weeks getting as much done as we can, set a hard deadline, then publish CR as is.
20:40:51 [AmeliaBR]
... But there would almost certainly be remaining issues. Also appendixes and stuff need lots of clean up work.
20:41:34 [AmeliaBR]
Option 2 is have another Editor's meeting. Suggestion is Amsterdam in June when Amelia's there for a conference.
20:41:43 [AmeliaBR]
... And try to get spec to 100% for CR.
20:42:02 [AmeliaBR]
Tav: I could probably get my issues done in next few weeks, but not sure about rest of spec.
20:43:25 [AmeliaBR]
NA: We've got a lot of issues in chapters which don't have active maintainers the past few weeks.
20:44:16 [AmeliaBR]
ABR: For myself, the specific issues I took ownership of I should be able to get done in next month. But there are chapters we didn't get to in the review, and lots of clean-up issues we noted but which don't have owners yet.
20:44:43 [AmeliaBR]
DS: So the real question is how can we get more people involved?
20:46:03 [AmeliaBR]
... For member companies that have been active in the past but not currently, we may get more engagement if we can show progress and a clear plan for what needs to be done.
20:46:35 [AmeliaBR]
NA: There is probably not a single solution; many different reasons people have not been active.
20:47:07 [AmeliaBR]
DS: True, but one reason is that it has been a long slog, and people have gotten frustrated by lack of visible progress.
20:47:20 [AmeliaBR]
NA: Any ideas how to show progress?
20:48:15 [AmeliaBR]
DS: Clear assessments for each chapter, summarizing outstanding issues and who has committed to address which. A progress report, basically, with a timeline for how much work needs to be done, how long it would take, on each chapter.
20:48:27 [AmeliaBR]
... Breaking down the problem into small components.
20:48:50 [AmeliaBR]
... Or would this process be so time consuming itself that it would defeat its purpose?
20:49:16 [AmeliaBR]
NA: I don't think so. I was planning on something similar anyway, as part of reaching out to group members to see how they can contribute.
20:49:37 [nikos]
20:49:45 [AmeliaBR]
DS: How much work is it? Do we have a single tracking location?
20:51:09 [AmeliaBR]
NA: We did have this wiki page, but it's rather out of date. I was thinking of maybe adding some script to GitHub, where all our issues are.
20:51:52 [AmeliaBR]
ABR: GitHub does have a "Milestones" feature for grouping & tracking issues that block a project. Haven't used it myself, but I think it would be relevant.
20:52:39 [AmeliaBR]
DS: I don't have a lot of time, but I can take a few issues that don't need a lot of background research.
20:53:31 [AmeliaBR]
NA: I will contact others, see if we can get more people signing up for issues, but I think CR would be end of June.
20:53:47 [AmeliaBR]
TOPIC: Potential Editor's meeting / F2F in June
20:55:14 [AmeliaBR]
NA: London meeting was productive, would like to do it again if it can work. Amelia's in Europe again & I've received permission to go, and we have a number of other WG members with limited travel budgets in the area.
20:55:41 [AmeliaBR]
DS: We may be able to get a host from CLI (?) in Amsterdam.
20:56:13 [AmeliaBR]
NA: That would be great. We don't need much, just a conference room, wifi, and maybe some tea-making facilities.
20:56:44 [AmeliaBR]
DS: And I think Microsoft and Google also have offices in Amsterdam.
20:56:58 [AmeliaBR]
... What are the dates?
20:57:35 [AmeliaBR]
NA: Sunday, June 19 - Wednesday June 22. If Sunday is difficult for meeting space, could start the Monday.
20:57:55 [AmeliaBR]
DS: I myself won't be able to make it. Neither the budget nor the time.
20:58:09 [nikos]
20:59:55 [AmeliaBR]
TOPIC: Is window.SVGDocument required?
20:59:57 [nikos]
21:00:48 [AmeliaBR]
NA: SVG 2 currently says that it is there (deprecated) for historical reasons, but only ~50% of current implementations support it, so interoperable behavior doesn't exist.
21:02:45 [AmeliaBR]
s/CLI (?)/CWI/
21:04:28 [AmeliaBR]
ABR: I lean towards deprecating something in one spec, removing it in next. But there are lots of other things in SVG 2 that have been removed outright.
21:04:55 [AmeliaBR]
... What are the details on lack of support? Was this a choice to remove, have their been complaints?
21:06:31 [AmeliaBR]
DS: If it's in WebKit but not Blink, Blink must have removed at some point. There may be a discussion thread somewhere.
21:06:52 [AmeliaBR]
... Do we have a way of marking things in the spec as obsolete, instead of deprecated?
21:07:05 [AmeliaBR]
NA: No, I don't think so.
21:08:30 [AmeliaBR]
DS: Having a deprecated version before obsolete is mostly convention to support transition. But not relevant if support has already been removed from implementations.
21:09:17 [AmeliaBR]
ABR: Sounds good. I don't think we need a new section on "obsolete" APIs, but we do need to make sure the "What's changed" appendix is updated to clearly indicate any API from SVG 1.1 that has been removed.
21:09:42 [AmeliaBR]
RESOLUTION: Remove the window.SVGDocument alias from SVG 2.
21:10:23 [AmeliaBR]
TOPIC: The HTML <base> element and same-page URL references
21:10:28 [nikos]
21:11:02 [AmeliaBR]
NA: I've done some reading since adding this to the agenda. I'm not sure I'm ready to make a decision yet.
21:12:10 [AmeliaBR]
... The <base> element changes how in-document links are interpreted. So, if you have a fill referencing a paint server, it will be relative to the base URL, not automatically in the same document.
21:13:01 [AmeliaBR]
... I think the desire is to be consistent with HTML. But it does often seem problematic with SVG.
21:13:14 [nikos]
21:14:01 [AmeliaBR]
Tav: Can you put a <base> in a SVG? Can you override the value?
21:16:04 [AmeliaBR]
NA: This test file (link above) shows current behavior. We know allow HTML <base> in SVG, but only one per document. xml:base has been deprecated.
21:19:50 [AmeliaBR]
ABR: The lack of override is an unfortunate limitation of <base> relative to xml:base. Would be more convenient to be able to reset the base for inline SVG. It comes up a lot in problems with single-page app frameworks; questions come up on StackOverflow.
21:20:11 [AmeliaBR]
NA: I'll follow-up with TabAtkins, who raised this on www-style
21:20:51 [AmeliaBR]
ABR: Another important aspect of the discussion on www-style is whether URL references should be re-computed if <base> changes (as it does in these single-page app frameworks): causes implementation issues.
21:21:00 [shepazu]
agenda+ SVG authoring guide
21:21:27 [AmeliaBR]
NA: I'll look into this further. Thanks for the added information; I'll assign the GH issue to myself.
21:21:36 [AmeliaBR]
TOPIC: Work on SVG Authoring Guide
21:22:41 [AmeliaBR]
DS: In the SVG Accessibility Task Force, we started work on SVG Accessibility Authoring Guide, but decided it would be best framed as an overall SVG Authoring Guide. Most best practices have both accessibility and other benefits.
21:23:14 [AmeliaBR]
... I've been working with chaals MN and Fred Esch. We've decided to start fresh with a new document, rather than what we'd been working on.
21:23:29 [AmeliaBR]
... Should get an initial skeleton published in next few weeks.
21:23:49 [AmeliaBR]
... If anyone has ideas on what should be in it, let me know. Or you can file issues when it's published.
21:24:32 [AmeliaBR]
... I would like to publish it on the main SVG repo instead of the SVG Accessibility repo.
21:24:53 [AmeliaBR]
NA: Sounds good. What are the particular differences that you decided to start from scratch?
21:25:16 [AmeliaBR]
DS: Well the original is from ~2001, very outdated & made incorrect assumptions about how things would work.
21:25:50 [AmeliaBR]
... chaals had re-started, but his draft was still very accessibility focused, wanted to generalize.
21:26:25 [AmeliaBR]
RRSAgent, make logs public
21:26:32 [AmeliaBR]
RRSAgent, publish minutes
21:26:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate AmeliaBR
21:27:03 [AmeliaBR]
trackbot, end telcon
21:27:03 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
21:27:03 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Tav, nikos, stakagi, shepazu, AmeliaBR
21:27:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:27:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
21:27:12 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
21:27:12 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items