Meeting minutes
Remove "side" attribute from "textPath"
karlcow: I was under the impression that this hasn't been implemented. Just now I see a comment from chromium that implementation is under way.
nzimmermann: I would vote for keeping it. Just another transformation on top of text length and other transformation attributes. I would recommend to keep it.
krit: IMO we would also need to test SVG viewers if they might have implemented it already, like InkScape. Illustrator does not plan to implement though.
Vinay: Is it a series of operations?
nzimmermann: yes, each glyph needs to get transformed. But we do that already for the other transformations.
Vinay: doesn't seem chalanging implementation wise but we need to see usage.
viralipurbey: Agree, we need to evaluate if users adapt it.
nzimmermann: it is convenient and not required. I don't have a strong opinion.
Vinay: Unlikely for developers have a use case.
https://
krit: Lets post pone decision to next week until we know actual implementation status.
karlcow: need more WPT test cases.
Remove shape-inside and shape-substract from SVG2
karlcow: Looking at the tests it doesn't seem to be implemented.
krit: This is about wrapping text in shapes based on the CSS implementation in HTML
krit: I know that FF supports text wrap in a block for SVG. Any other implementation?
Vinay: Not in chrome
viralipurbey: no there isn't
krit: I am not even sure if we even have detailed enough spec text to implement wrapping reliably
karlcow: I'd suppose to drop it.
nzimmermann: touching text in browsers is tricky. If it hasn't been implemented so far, it is unlikely to still get implemented.
<dmangal> wrapping is general is pretty desirable by the community w3c/
nzimmermann: uncharted territory. Even today, text/text selection is underspecified. This adds more friction.
nzimmermann: we already tried multi-line text earlier and it was a nightmare.
dmangal: Nevertheless, seems desirable and users ask for it. From implementation point of view I agree though.
krit: I hear no commitment from participants to implement. We don't know to which extend the FF implementation is complete, what do we want to do?
karlcow: advocating for finishing SVG2 and drop it from current spec.
dmangal: I'd like to ask for more time to test in Chrome and get back.
nzimmermann: 25 years ago was meant to be standalone. Nowadays we are phasing user demands but as a web developer I'd think of a compound document. That is why there is the demand is probably coming from. But as a standalone document, SVG2 should limit to itself and omit and avoid complexity and rather defer to compound documents.
dmangal: I agree. We should scope from SVG point of view. Layout structure is very differnt in SVG.
dmangal: If needed we can add it to a compound document or another draft.
nzimmermann: this is a multi-month effort and I'd vote to drop it.
dmangal: agree.
RESOLUTION: Drop text wrapping in CSS shapes for SVG2
Remove stroke-linejoin 'miter-clip' or 'arcs'
karlcow: The current WPT test cases seem to fail everywhere.
karlcow: There is a comment in the spec that there are no browser implementations.
krit: My concern, even at the time, was that rendering libraries do not support this. So it needs to be implemented in browsers. Something browsers do not do toay.
nzimmermann: it would also kill performance. Easy to add if rendering engines/libraries would support it but this is not the case and would be very complex to implement on browser level. Likely never ever going to happen.
krit: do we want to get to a resolution to drop it? Or defer it?
Vinay: We should not complicate SVG 2 for now and may keep it for later.
nzimmermann: it is greatly written for libraries though. But even that description is very difficult to implement due to the edge cases.
RESOLUTION: Drop 'miter-clip' or 'arcs' from SVG 2
UA stylesheet seems to require title as display: none but browsers do display: inline
karlcow: This UA stylesheet is not implemented in any browser.
krit: you mean this particular property.
karlcow: I don't believe it is part of any implementation, yes.
nzimmermann: I'd like to clarify that UA stylesheets for SVG do exist (unlike the last comment on the git ticket suggests). It is just this setting that is not implemented.
dmangal: I believe display inline/none makes no sense in the referenced issue make sense for rendering. So I would recommend to drop the entire display section from the spec.
krit: I get from the discussion that we should not require browsers to adapt to a UA stylesheet that is the same everywhere as there are browser specific settings that browsers need to look for. So lets focus on properties that must be part of the UA and not require a specific form.
RESOLUTION: Drop display: inline AND display: none from SVG 2 in the UA stylesheet as requirement
Does the entire path need to be valid in order to use a path attribute on a textPath
viralipurbey: continuation of previous discussion. We decided, that viewers should not take href in case of errors.
viralipurbey: when working on WPT I saw the comment on the fallback and wanted to confirm what the spec text should say.
nzimmermann: literally taken it would never fallback to href.
<karlcow> https://
krit: Last resolution was that: if there is a d attribute, do not fallback to href.
viralipurbey: We need to be clear in the spec.
nzimmermann: yes, remove that part that you pointed out from the spec.
<karlcow> https://
viralipurbey: I am concerned that we didn't catch the original intend.
viralipurbey: Since an empty path is a valid path, we should not fallback. But why was it introduced then?
ACTION: karlcow and viralipurbey to check what browsers do based on the original WPT tests.