W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

Telcon minutes, 20 November 2008

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:12:40 +1100
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081120211240.GB30573@arc.mcc.id.au>



      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                   SVG Working Group Teleconference

20 Nov 2008


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2008OctDec/0391.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-svg-irc


          Shepazu, heycam, anthony, NH, ChrisL


          Doug Schepers



     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Marketing SVG
         2. [6]Review of the Selectors API spec
         3. [7]SVG 1.1 Errata
         4. [8]Test suite
         5. [9]SVG F2F
         6. [10]Modules and the work ahead
     * [11]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 20 November 2008

   <shepazu> SVG 1.2 has entered PR phase (yesterday). Announcement:

     [12] http://www.w3.org/News/2008#item192

   <scribe> Scribe: Cameron

   <scribe> ScribeNick: heycam

Marketing SVG

   DS: because we're going to recommendation hopefully some time in mid
   ... we're going to make a "press release"-like press release, but
   we're not going to spend the money to send it out over the wire
   ... since it's not likely to get picked up by news agencies in
   ... we think it would be better to have one in january
   ... we don't want to hold back the spec for obvious reasons
   ... we need some news in order to have a reason to have a press
   ... things like "going to rec"
   ... in this case maybe a good press release would be "last month we
   went to rec and we have gotten these other standards bodies - MAE,
   JIS, ITU - who are interested in ratifying svg as part of their
   standards as well"
   ... to show wider support for svg
   ... thoughts on delaying a press release until jan/feb?

   CL: if we have to do that, then we might put out an improved test
   suite, since we've only snapshotted it
   ... plus more implementation report
   ... that'd be (faintly) newsworthy
   ... we'd've demonstrated it's interoperable

   DS: might be good to pull in the results from other browsers, too
   ... e.g. chrome, safari, firefox
   ... we'd prepare all the things required for a press release

   CL: but it'd get faxed or whatever

   NH: i think that's not a problem for ikivo, but i'll check with

   <ChrisL> so there would be the web version, for going to rec; and a
   newswire update on it, in january

   AG: fujisawa-san will have to ask his marketing people

   DS: please get back to me about that, and with testimonials
   ... we'll reuse those testimonials in the actual press release
   ... over the next few weeks i'll be sending ideas to the list and
   inviting feedback on testimonials, which we can talk about later

Review of the Selectors API spec


     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Nov/0057.html

   DS: the thing erik noted was they've removed support for selecting
   on namespace
   ... this means if you have mixed svg/xhtml stuff, you wouldn't be
   able to select only on svg:a

   CL: given that css wg has identified css namespaces as a stable
   spec, i think we could argue on that basis that it should be

   DS: we can't ignore the fact that namespaces exist
   ... we should also review the spec for anything else

   CL: someone to do the review?

   <scribe> ACTION: Erik to review the selectors-api LCWD [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2347 - Review the selectors-api LCWD [on
   Erik Dahlström - due 2008-11-27].

   <scribe> ACTION: Doug to review the selectors-api LCWD [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2348 - Review the selectors-api LCWD [on
   Doug Schepers - due 2008-11-27].

   <scribe> ACTION: Cameron and Doug to test simultaneous actions
   [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2349 - And Doug to test simultaneous
   actions [on Cameron McCormack - due 2008-11-27].

   trackbot, close ACTION-2349

   <trackbot> ACTION-2349 And Doug to test simultaneous actions closed

   AG: when should comments be in by?

   DS: december 12

   <scribe> ACTION: Anthony to review the selectors-api LCWD [recorded
   in [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-svg-minutes.html#action04]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2350 - Review the selectors-api LCWD [on
   Anthony Grasso - due 2008-11-27].

SVG 1.1 Errata

   AG: due to tiny i haven't done much on errata lately
   ... i've started integrating the proposed errata into the 1.1 spec

   <anthony> - Linking in a text environment

   <anthony> - feFlood in attribute

   <anthony> - Filter subregion

   <anthony> - Cleaning up the wording of the underlying value being
   the identity transform

   <anthony> - Start and end incorrectly described for text

   <anthony> - Typo 'effect' instead of 'affect'

   <anthony> - Incorrect reference to solidColor element

   <anthony> - Capturing pointer-events with a zero opacity mask

   AG: these are the ones that have been integrated

   DS: how many more are there?


     [18] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Group/repository/errata/errata.xml

   CL: we should publish new errata with any new ones, leave it for a
   bit, then publish a 2ed of 1.1 that includes all the errata we have
   to date

   AG: there's been a link from the 1.1F spec to the errata for a while

   <anthony> [19]http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/

     [19] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/

   AG: there are still 14 errata we need to go over, draft ones

   CL: we need to get the draft ones up to proposed

   DS: how about next tuesday we start going over these draft errata

   CM: some of these errata are just placeholders and haven't been done

   AG: this document is in the old repo, we should move it over to the
   new one
   ... the errata document covers all specs, so i'll have to pull the
   bits out that are related to 1.1F

   <scribe> ACTION: Anthony to extract out the 1.1F errata items and
   add them to the public repo [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2351 - Extract out the 1.1F errata items
   and add them to the public repo [on Anthony Grasso - due

Test suite

   CL: we can package up what we have (that we used for the CR period)
   and that's the latest release
   ... or we can sit back a bit and figure out which of the drafts we
   can make work and push those forward
   ... we've said "here's a beta, here's a beta" so it's probably good
   to publish something final with what we've used for testing

   NH: we found some minor errors in the tests
   ... what should we do with these?

   CL: raise an issue on each one and we'll discuss it

   DS: we should look at an improved test harness

   CL: i'd be interested to see that
   ... the existing one [MWI one] assumes that html forms are available

   DS: we can make an svg framework

   NH: that'd be good i think

   DS: might need changes to the tests themselves

   CL: given that the forms part is just for reporting test failure,
   you could postURL() and some scripts to do this

   DS: or an <a>
   ... so we'd need something to transform the tests into this
   ... we should have criteria for making tests incredibly obvious for
   when a test doesn't pass
   ... like e.g., if at all possible, the background of the test should
   be red if it does not pass

   AG: in some cases this can't be done

   DS: but whereever possible
   ... if not, then do whatever needs to be done
   ... so many of our tests are visual
   ... sometimes dr olaf has made tests where something is a certain
   shape/dimensions and red, and overlap a green one with that

   AG: so using red as an indication for failure
   ... i think it's a good idea

   CM: i don't think it's a huge deal to require that the tester can
   distinguish red from green
   ... i like the idea of automating test criteria checking and making
   tests report this via a colour

   CL: i'd be worried about making existing tests require scripting
   ... for example a simple test for bold text, you'd need to script to
   look through the dom etc.

   DS: but for those tests already using scripting we can take
   advantage of this fact
   ... for tests that need a reference image, instead of making a
   snapshot of the entire test, we should include an image within the
   test itself to show what something should look like

   NH: i'd like explanatory text in the slide itself

   DS: so yes we should write some guidelines, and use these as part of
   judging whether these tests are added to the test suite
   ... some tests will have to be really complicated, but having
   smaller tests would also be good

   CL: if you have smaller tests you have more of them, which might be
   a disadvantage
   ... a test should say first what it's testing, then whether it
   passes, then it should give all the details of who it's doing the

   DS: i agree, but would put the pass criteria first

   AG: in the template there should be a spot to fill in the pass

   DS: that's a good idea
   ... we should also include links to the spec that describe what's
   being tested

   AG: the xslt for generating the test suite could easily pull out
   fields like this

   DS: this'd also help when judging whether the test is good or not

   <shepazu> ...and for test coverage

   DS: what was svggen/ for?

   CL: it has test files stripped from non-SVG namespace
   ... there were many issues with CVS revisions in the test slides
   ... we should make the script not generate the svggen/, and make the
   harness not refer to svggen/

   <scribe> ACTION: Erik to get rid of svggen/ [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2352 - Get rid of svggen/ [on Erik
   Dahlström - due 2008-11-27].

   DS: in france, we discussed having a test suite generator
   ... allowing people to upload svg files and it would generate a test
   based on the template and that uploaded document

   AG: some sort of user form you'd fill out, and fill in the fields,
   and for the test case content just paste in the svg into a form

   DS: and be able to upload an image

   CL: why do we want to do this?

   DS: it solves the problem of inconsistency in test files
   ... this'd be a simple additional way to make tests, and for the
   public to submit tests

   AG: public wouldn't necessarily know the template

   DS: giving them (or me) fields to fill out, makes me more inclined
   to make a test
   ... might not be the preferred way for everyone to make tests, but
   for some it will
   ... we know that these tests will conform to the template

   AG: from my pov i think it's a good idea

   DS: the reason you would want to base64 included images is that you
   won't lose external resources

   AG: for some cases we'll still need external resources

   CL: might make it harder to edit embedded base64 resources
   ... but it also helps the issue of editing an external resource and
   not knowing the implications for all tests that refer to it

   DS: i'll mock it up and send it to the list


   CL: for each person who's a team contact, they get to go to one f2f
   meeting per year

   DS: and this is retroactive, so we've already had ours

   CL: so we have zero left until the middle of next year

   <ChrisL4> although, if a f2f is held local to a w3c tem person they
   do get to go as there is no flight/hotel . So doug could have one in
   RTP for example or i could do one in France

   CL: it is feasible for me to dial in to australia for 8 hours

   AG: i wanted to know how many people are attending
   ... could we get the wbs form up?
   ... 16-20 february

   DS: in the worst case chris and i can dial in

   AG: i'm looking into quotes at the moment
   ... that's 19th jan, and erik said he'd prefer to have it later (in

   <scribe> ACTION: Doug to put up the wbs form for the Sydney F2F
   [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2353 - Put up the wbs form for the Sydney
   F2F [on Doug Schepers - due 2008-11-27].


     [23] http://www.foms-workshop.org/foms2009/pmwiki.php/Main/CFP)

   DS: others can also sponsor our travel, but i doubt that would be

Modules and the work ahead

   DS: after discussions with a number of people, i think our most
   stable choice going forward is to assume that we are working in the
   way we thought we were going to be working
   ... that is, working on modules rather than a monolithic spec
   ... there are some challenges to this, but we don't want to abandon
   1.2T completely, as it doesn't send good signals about maturity
   ... one problem is figuring out where to put stuff that is common to
   all modules
   ... i think rather than coming up with some elaborate plan where it
   gets pulled in from some place, we can simply coordinate on the
   issues (between the different module editors)

   CM: yes i think we should try doing that first, before solving it

   CL: currently there's a blank directory that you copy to start
   writing a module, is that still what we should do?

   DS: i've been copying one of the old modules and checking it in
   under the new name
   ... put in a new .conf file if there's not one already
   ... svg tiny/core need a more complicated make system than most of
   the modules
   ... since they'll likely just be single page

   AG: maybe compositing would be more than one

   CM: i haven't made the changes to the build script to handle single

   DS: we can edit the master files until the scripts have been updated
   to handle modules

   RESOLUTION: We'll stick with the current plan of having modules that
   work on top of 1.2T (with the goal that 1.2T + modules would have
   all the functionality of 1.1)

   DS: we want to make it clear that SVG 1.2 Tiny is stable and future
   compatible regardless of what other work we do

   CL: i agree

   <shepazu> NH to have torkel email Doug about MAE

   <shepazu> ACTION: NH to have torkel email Doug about MAE [recorded
   in [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-svg-minutes.html#action08]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2354 - Have torkel email Doug about MAE
   [on Niklas Hagelroth - due 2008-11-27].

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Anthony to extract out the 1.1F errata items and add
   them to the public repo [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Anthony to review the selectors-api LCWD [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Cameron and Doug to test simultaneous actions
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Doug to put up the wbs form for the Sydney F2F
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Doug to review the selectors-api LCWD [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Erik to get rid of svggen/ [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Erik to review the selectors-api LCWD [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: NH to have torkel email Doug about MAE [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([34]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/11/20 21:09:29 $

     [33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

   [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51
Check for newer version at [35]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002

     [35] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/proposals/errata/
Found Scribe: Cameron
Found ScribeNick: heycam
Default Present: Shepazu, heycam, anthony, NH, ChrisL
Present: Shepazu heycam anthony NH ChrisL
Regrets: Erik
Agenda: [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2008OctDe
Found Date: 20 Nov 2008
Guessing minutes URL: [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-svg-minutes.html
People with action items: anthony cameron doug erik nh

     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2008OctDec/0391.html
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-svg-minutes.html

   End of [38]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

     [38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 21:13:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:09 UTC