<liam> https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/pull/376
<scribe> scribe: AmeliaBR
David: We want to update to the
new WebIDL mixin syntax. The issue is in interfaces we're
including from CSS and HTML.
... CSSOM has made their own updates, they just need to be
published.
... For HTML, we are currently linking to 5.1, need to update
that to latest draft, but we're also waiting on them to update
their syntax.
Liam: By latest draft, do you still mean W3C?
David: I don't really care either way.
Liam: Because linking to WHATWG for normative could have issues later in the recommendation process.
David: I've asked whether it's
possible to update our syntax before HTML updates theirs.
... Tobie suggested there needs to be a note in the spec.
<liam> [q. about timezones - i had no idea SVG used to stick on UTC, sorry]
Liam: So do we need a resolution, adding the note to SVG?
Amelia: I think he meant that a note was needed in WebIDL, since this is a question of how the old and new syntax play together.
David: The only other change that was requested was a changes appendix entry.
Liam: There's already note about changing to WebIDL, isn't this part of that?
Amelia: I think we want to be more explicit about changes since CR.
Dirk: Haven't we already agreed to switch to the mixin syntax
Liam: Yes, the question is only on how to handle the inter-spec issues.
Amelia: We could remove the HTML bits for now, push the rest.
Liam: What would the benefit be, versus waiting?
Amelia: Well, anyone waiting on
us could move forward.
... For example, there's a proposal for an HTMLOrSVGElement
mixin, to properly define shared features that we're currently
re-defining on SVGElement and then linking in the prose back to
HTML.
Liam: But isn't that a dependency on HTML, too?
Amelia: Yes, but the other HTML spec wants to move forward.
Liam: What if we accept the PR, but then add a note, and follow up with WebIDL / HTML specs?
Amelia: That makes sense. It's only an ED. So long as the other specs are fixed by the time we republish. Looks like the easiest/fastest fix will be to get WebIDL to make it clear that the old & new syntax are equivalent.
Liam: OK, so we can resolve to approve the PR, and request tobie to make the changes to WebIDL. We can file an issue on that spec.
Amelia: We still need a few
changes to the PR. Need to update links to HTML interface to go
to the latest published version, and need changes note.
... And you also wanted an editorial note about the WebIDL
issues?
Liam: That seems the easiest, to put in the spec we control.
Amelia: But where would that go? After every interface that references HTML?
Dirk: Why don't we go with that, since it looks like Tobie is fairly responsive to making the changes.
<liam> [need to update HTML links, add to change log]
Proposed resolution: Accept PR, with edits to change log & HTML links, and follow up with WebIDL issue about syntax clarifications
scribe: and an edit to LinkStyle cross-reference
RESOLUTION: Accept PR, after edits to change log & HTML/CSS cross-references, and follow up by creating a WebIDL issue about syntax clarifications
Amelia: Do we have volunteers to make the changes?
David: If dirk has time to do it, it's his branch. Otherwise, I could.
Dirk: Time is limited. I should be able to do it in the next 8-9 days, though.
Amelia: And David, can you follow up with WebIDL issue?
David: Yes.
Dirk: And all the needed changes are described in the PR comments?
Amelia: Yes.
<dstorey> https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/pull/387
David: I have a number, related
PR
... Previously, in WebIDL, you only added an "exposed" tag for
exposure to WebWorkers, now you add it for exposed to Window
global as well.
... I'm not sure if there's any build step that needs to be
checked.
Amelia: The build will run automatically after a push. You can test it locally, but I don't expect there will be a problem here.
Bogdan: It says all checks have passed on the PR>
Amelia: I don't think our build test is integrated in GitHub that way.
krit: It's in the tools folder in
the repo. You can check out and run it that way.
... Anything else we need here?
Amelia: Just resolve that it is
good to merge.
... Only thing is there should be a changes note, but that can
be part of the same note for the other PR, updating to latest
WebIDL syntax.
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 387, Add [Exposed] to SVG interfaces
Amelia: I'm almost ready to request the updated WD, but still needs updates to the "Status of the Document" section
https://w3c.github.io/svg-aam/
Amelia: We're switching from a joint publication with ARIA & the SVG A11y task force, to only SVG WG being responsible, so it needs updates to the wording. Liam, are you able to take a look?
Liam: Sure. Although if it's using ReSpec, the boilerplate should be inserted automatically.
Amelia: I don't think we're using that feature currently, but I can take a look.
Liam: Ask me if you can't figure it out.
Amelia: OK, I'll follow up and hope that we have something ready for a publication request for next week.
<dstorey> https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/315
Github: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/315
David: SVG 2 has new attributes
added, they are currently defined as being exposed using
SVGAnimatedString.
... No browsers implement them that way, the suggestion is to
implement them using the basic HTML form.
... It would be easier to implement if consistent with
HTML.
Amelia: This issue was raised by Robert Longson, a Firefox implementer, so I suspect he also thinks it would be an easier implementation for them.
David: It's easy to make the change, since they're not implemented, except that Firefox exposes download, and does it as a basic DOMString, not an animated string.
<dstorey> sorry my call dropped
Liam: Are there any tests? Should we ask the person who proposed the change to provide tests?
Amelia: He's a volunteer, not sure if he's familiar with the test requirements.
Liam: Should they be marked at risk?
Amelia: Yes, since they're not implemented, but we still need to think about which version is more likely to get implementations.
Dirk: I would vote for changing to DOMString, and also marking as at-risk.
Related issue for consideration: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/312
<dstorey> (doesn't seem like it wants to dial me back in)
Amelia: I think we're over time. Can we discuss more on GitHub? In particular, can implementers comment about whether you're likely to implement these properties at all, and if so whether you prefere DOMString versus SVGAnimatedString?
Dirk: I don't want to see any new properties with SVGAnimatedString.
Amelia: OK, so that's the kind of comments we should see.
github-bot, end topic
trackbot, who's here?
<trackbot> Sorry, AmeliaBR, I don't understand 'trackbot, who's here?'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
trackbot, end telcon
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) Succeeded: s/Bogdan/krit/ Succeeded: s/end topic// Default Present: liam, AmeliaBR, dstorey, krit Present: liam AmeliaBR dstorey krit Found Scribe: AmeliaBR Inferring ScribeNick: AmeliaBR WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 19 Mar 2018 People with action items: 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]