19:30:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #svg
19:30:06 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/02/05-svg-irc
19:30:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:30:08 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #svg
19:30:10 <trackbot> Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
19:30:10 <trackbot> Date: 05 February 2018
19:30:55 <tink> tink has joined #svg
19:31:49 <IanPouncey> IanPouncey has joined #svg
19:32:05 <tink> present+ Léonie
19:32:10 <IanPouncey> present+
19:32:10 <liam> present+ Liam
19:32:19 <Tav> present+
19:32:25 <ericwilligers> present+
19:32:28 <krit> present+
19:32:36 <BogdanBrinza> present+
19:32:59 <Chris> present+
19:33:48 <AmeliaBR> present+
19:34:27 <BogdanBrinza> We have three agenda+ items today (as announced in the mail to WG)
19:34:37 <BogdanBrinza> https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/291
19:35:02 <Chris> github: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/291
19:35:25 <BogdanBrinza> Was discussed last time - is there anything outstanding on the topic?
19:36:33 <BogdanBrinza> Last week - not clear if there were new issues. New comments indicate that people are happy with proposal and spec changes and browser implementers started the work
19:36:44 <BogdanBrinza> resolution: close the issue
19:37:21 <Chris> topic: new
19:37:34 <BogdanBrinza> GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/269
19:38:46 <Chris> +1 to more specific testing issues
19:39:08 <Chris> ok to drop agenda+ on this one
19:39:23 <liam> +1
19:39:28 <BogdanBrinza> Issue should stay open as we're working as a group to establish test collateral - but not much in terms of agenda
19:39:32 <BogdanBrinza> topic: new
19:40:17 <AmeliaBR> TOPIC: SVG-AAM republishing
19:40:23 <AmeliaBR> Github: https://github.com/w3c/svg-aam/issues/3
19:41:37 <BogdanBrinza> Going forward we should make should to add agenda+ from SVG-aam / Graphics-aam
19:42:41 <BogdanBrinza> Last published draft for SVG-AAM was out of date, updated Graphics-AAM draft has been published last week
19:43:00 <Chris> is the document ready to be published or does it need substantive edits first?
19:44:47 <Chris> +1 to Ian as co-editor
19:44:49 <BogdanBrinza> IanPouncey: just commented on the issue
19:45:09 <liam> +1 here
19:45:17 <BogdanBrinza> AmeliaBR: any comments or resolve?
19:45:30 <BogdanBrinza> resolution: Ian Pouncey is an editor on SVG-AAM
19:47:26 <BogdanBrinza> AmeliaBR: there are administrative edits required for W3C publishing process
19:47:35 <BogdanBrinza> Chris: can it happen this week or next week?
19:48:00 <Chris> AmeliaBR: next week
19:48:11 <BogdanBrinza> AmeliaBR: we can try next week
19:51:04 <BogdanBrinza> AmeliaBR: focusing on changes required to republish soon
19:52:02 <BogdanBrinza> resolution: publish an updated working draft, pending edits
19:52:41 <ericwilligers> Topic: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/384
19:52:41 <BogdanBrinza> topic new
19:52:59 <BogdanBrinza> GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/384
19:53:22 <BogdanBrinza> ericwilligers: We'll start with Extensibility chapter
19:53:27 <BogdanBrinza> two changes to the spec
19:53:52 <Chris> great, good to hear
19:53:58 <liam> awesome
19:54:11 <ericwilligers> GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/385
19:54:22 <BogdanBrinza> all: sound great - no concerns to make width/height presentation attrbutes
19:54:35 <BogdanBrinza> GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/385
19:54:51 <liam> [i think at TPAC we agreed to remove bearing commands, would be good to reaffirm that here]
19:54:58 <BogdanBrinza> ericwilligers: bearing commands - no current implementations, at risk
19:56:03 <BogdanBrinza> https://svgwg.org/specs/paths/
19:56:59 <AmeliaBR> https://www.w3.org/2017/04/svg-2017.html#scope " features which are in the reference draft of SVG2 and which do not meet the stability and interoperability requirements for a Proposed Recommendation may be moved to separate specification modules, work on which would remain in scope, but at a lower priority."
19:57:32 <BogdanBrinza> resolution: remove bearing commands from SVG 2.0 specification, optionally move to https://svgwg.org/specs/paths/
19:59:19 <Chris> Tav: Inkscape plans to implement this
19:59:40 <Chris> BogdanBrinza: OK, but no browser implementation yet
19:59:53 <Chris> AmeliaBR: much asked-for feature
20:01:34 <BogdanBrinza> resolution: remove Z and z from SVG 2.0 and move to https://svgwg.org/specs/paths/
20:02:33 <BogdanBrinza> no issues with path, polygon, etc *
20:02:42 <BogdanBrinza> "Removed the SVGPathSeg* and SVGAnimatedPathData interfaces and the related methods on SVGPathElement."
20:02:58 <BogdanBrinza> tests suggest that only Chrome removed it - shouldn't be a blocker to removal from the specification
20:04:53 <BogdanBrinza> krit: are browsers interested in implementing new features? specifically mesh gradients, new path commands
20:05:15 <BogdanBrinza> krit: if they're not implemented will we have just another revision of SVG 1.1?
20:05:38 <BogdanBrinza> AmeliaBR: the discussion is really about this year, in time for candidate recommendation
20:06:11 <BogdanBrinza> Chris: suggest we keep focused on the discussion on the agenda
20:08:36 <BogdanBrinza> BogdanBrinza: (getting back to GitHub discussion)
20:08:50 <BogdanBrinza> ericwilligers: Promoted the ‘d’ attribute to a property. [At Risk]
20:09:06 <Chris> yes, keep this one in the spec
20:09:06 <BogdanBrinza> Tav: considering implementation in Inkscape
20:09:24 <BogdanBrinza> ericwilligers: "Removed the pathLength attribute, getTotalLength(), and getPointAtLength() methods from SVGPathElement, they are now on SVGGeometryElement. [At Risk]"
20:09:38 <BogdanBrinza> ericwilligers: no browser implementations
20:09:45 <BogdanBrinza> AmeliaBR: Chrome should support this
20:09:59 <BogdanBrinza> ericwilligers: will double check the test
20:11:23 <BogdanBrinza> resolution: this is (same) interface change - keep this at risk
20:11:37 <BogdanBrinza> ericwilligers: "Clarified that a value of zero for ‘pathLength’ is valid."
20:12:43 <BogdanBrinza> resolution: not at risk - just a clarification to a spec
20:13:10 <liam> [big thank you yes]
20:13:11 <Chris> nice one, ericwilligers
20:14:41 <BogdanBrinza> topic: Discuss definitions "At risk", "remove from the specification"
20:17:19 <BogdanBrinza> Chris & AmeliaBR: marking features at risk is a good way to indicate something is likely to be removed, while saving time at publication
20:20:38 <BogdanBrinza> BogdanBrinza: from the implementers point of view most features are locked ahead of time and most features don't happen overnight
20:22:25 <florian> florian has joined #svg
20:22:46 <BogdanBrinza> there are different lenses and angles on the SVG 2.0 and it's expected that in order to ship the specification we need to focus on testable value that was added since SVG 1.1
20:23:41 <BogdanBrinza> with that said some of the specific features that were split from SVG 2.0 are tracked in separate specifications (such as Fill, Stroke, Paths) and implementors that want to ship those - can continue both editorial work and implementations
20:24:36 <BogdanBrinza> tracking not implemented features in SVG 2.0 does more harm to SVG 2.0 than good as it prevents considering new features as "implementable" in the wide spectrum of implementations (browsers for example) that have different implementation constraints
20:25:21 <BogdanBrinza> Focusing on _shipping_ SVG 2.0 is our statement to resurrect the working group and demonstrate that we can actually ship specifications that 1) deliver additional value over SVG 1.1 and 2) ship on time eventually
20:27:25 <BogdanBrinza> AmeliaBR: we need to distinguish "new features" and "bug fixes". Bug fix is anything that tries to clarify SVG 1.1 - adds details, provides additional clarity. Recommendation is to keep this in specification, removing only as last resort
20:29:12 <BogdanBrinza> AmeliaBR: for new features the proposal is to change approach and treat one implementation as "at risk", no implemention as removal
20:34:22 <Chris> topic: next meeting
20:35:02 <Chris> rrsagent, make minutes
20:35:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/02/05-svg-minutes.html Chris
21:00:01 <florian> florian has joined #svg
21:04:38 <Rossen> Rossen has joined #svg
21:06:09 <leaverou> leaverou has joined #svg
21:06:40 <plinss> plinss has joined #svg
21:38:24 <florian> florian has joined #svg
22:46:11 <florian> florian has joined #svg
23:52:19 <florian> florian has joined #svg
23:53:00 <florian> florian has joined #svg