W3C

- DRAFT -

SVG Working Group Teleconference

05 Feb 2018

Attendees

Present
Léonie, IanPouncey, Liam, Tav, ericwilligers, krit, BogdanBrinza, Chris, AmeliaBR
Regrets
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
BogdanBrinza

Contents


We have three agenda+ items today (as announced in the mail to WG)

https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/291

<Chris> github: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/291

Was discussed last time - is there anything outstanding on the topic?

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

RESOLUTION: close the issue

new

GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/269

<Chris> +1 to more specific testing issues

<Chris> ok to drop agenda+ on this one

<liam> +1

Issue should stay open as we're working as a group to establish test collateral - but not much in terms of agenda

SVG-AAM republishing

<AmeliaBR> Github: https://github.com/w3c/svg-aam/issues/3

Going forward we should make should to add agenda+ from SVG-aam / Graphics-aam

Last published draft for SVG-AAM was out of date, updated Graphics-AAM draft has been published last week

<Chris> is the document ready to be published or does it need substantive edits first?

<Chris> +1 to Ian as co-editor

IanPouncey: just commented on the issue

<liam> +1 here

AmeliaBR: any comments or resolve?

RESOLUTION: Ian Pouncey is an editor on SVG-AAM

AmeliaBR: there are administrative edits required for W3C publishing process

Chris: can it happen this week or next week?

<Chris> AmeliaBR: next week

AmeliaBR: we can try next week
... focusing on changes required to republish soon

RESOLUTION: publish an updated working draft, pending edits

https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/384

topic new

GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/384

ericwilligers: We'll start with Extensibility chapter

two changes to the spec

<Chris> great, good to hear

<liam> awesome

<ericwilligers> GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/385

all: sound great - no concerns to make width/height presentation attrbutes

GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/385

<liam> [i think at TPAC we agreed to remove bearing commands, would be good to reaffirm that here]

ericwilligers: bearing commands - no current implementations, at risk

https://svgwg.org/specs/paths/

<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."

RESOLUTION: remove bearing commands from SVG 2.0 specification, optionally move to https://svgwg.org/specs/paths/

<Chris> Tav: Inkscape plans to implement this

<Chris> BogdanBrinza: OK, but no browser implementation yet

<Chris> AmeliaBR: much asked-for feature

RESOLUTION: remove Z and z from SVG 2.0 and move to https://svgwg.org/specs/paths/

no issues with path, polygon, etc *

"Removed the SVGPathSeg* and SVGAnimatedPathData interfaces and the related methods on SVGPathElement."

tests suggest that only Chrome removed it - shouldn't be a blocker to removal from the specification

krit: are browsers interested in implementing new features? specifically mesh gradients, new path commands
... if they're not implemented will we have just another revision of SVG 1.1?

AmeliaBR: the discussion is really about this year, in time for candidate recommendation

Chris: suggest we keep focused on the discussion on the agenda

BogdanBrinza: (getting back to GitHub discussion)

ericwilligers: Promoted the ‘d’ attribute to a property. [At Risk]

<Chris> yes, keep this one in the spec

Tav: considering implementation in Inkscape

ericwilligers: "Removed the pathLength attribute, getTotalLength(), and getPointAtLength() methods from SVGPathElement, they are now on SVGGeometryElement. [At Risk]"
... no browser implementations

AmeliaBR: Chrome should support this

ericwilligers: will double check the test

RESOLUTION: this is (same) interface change - keep this at risk

ericwilligers: "Clarified that a value of zero for ‘pathLength’ is valid."

RESOLUTION: not at risk - just a clarification to a spec

<liam> [big thank you yes]

<Chris> nice one, ericwilligers

Discuss definitions "At risk", "remove from the specification"

Chris & AmeliaBR: marking features at risk is a good way to indicate something is likely to be removed, while saving time at publication

BogdanBrinza: from the implementers point of view most features are locked ahead of time and most features don't happen overnight

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

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

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

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

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
... for new features the proposal is to change approach and treat one implementation as "at risk", no implemention as removal

next meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. close the issue
  2. Ian Pouncey is an editor on SVG-AAM
  3. publish an updated working draft, pending edits
  4. remove bearing commands from SVG 2.0 specification, optionally move to https://svgwg.org/specs/paths/
  5. remove Z and z from SVG 2.0 and move to https://svgwg.org/specs/paths/
  6. this is (same) interface change - keep this at risk
  7. not at risk - just a clarification to a spec
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/02/05 20:35:07 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Present: Léonie IanPouncey Liam Tav ericwilligers krit BogdanBrinza Chris AmeliaBR
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: BogdanBrinza
Inferring Scribes: BogdanBrinza

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 05 Feb 2018
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]