W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Minutes, Mar 12, 2009 telcon

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:23:25 +1100
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090312212325.GA31919@arc.mcc.id.au>
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-svg-minutes.html

   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                   SVG Working Group Teleconference

12 Mar 2009

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/0230.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-svg-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Shepazu, ed__, anthony, heycam, ChrisL, Chris

   Regrets
   Chair
          Erik

   Scribe
          Cameron

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]SVG in text/html
         2. [6]Transforms module
         3. [7]Vector effects
         4. [8]Compositing
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________



   <trackbot> Date: 12 March 2009

   <shepazu> sigh

   <scribe> Scribe: Cameron

   <scribe> ScribeNick: heycam

SVG in text/html

   DS: it is now on the SVG WG to propose specific wording to go in to
   the HTML 5 spec
   ... this would be replacement text for the currently commented out
   text

   ED: what's the timeframe?

   DS: i said 2 weeks
   ... rubys said there didn't seem to be too much of a hurry, since
   conversation is progressing on the mailing lists

   ED: i don't know about the list of element case fixups
   ... probably would be a good idea to require implementations to know
   about SVG 1.1 and 1.2T elements

   DS: that seems to be what hsivonen was suggesting after the telcon
   ... which is a reasonable compromise

   ED: so, not to restrict future elements, but at least requiring
   those ones to be supported
   ... how should we write this up?

   DS: just as a sequence of "Replace [blah blah] with [foo foo]"
   ... last time we had multiple proposals that we folded in, and that
   seemed to cause confusion
   ... i think we should keep it simple this time

   CM: we should come out with an email of the form "Replace [blah
   blah] with [foo foo]" in the end, but we can draft it on the wiki
   ... somebody should take the existing text and put in on the wiki

   DS: i can do that

   <scribe> ACTION: Doug to take the existing commented out SVG in
   text/html spec text and put it in the wiki [recorded in
   [10]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-svg-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2490 - Take the existing commented out SVG
   in text/html spec text and put it in the wiki [on Doug Schepers -
   due 2009-03-19].

Transforms module

   ED: there were some discussions on the list

   <ed__>
   [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/022
   5.html

     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/0225.html

   ED: have dino's comments been dealt with?

   AG: dean sent a list of things of things he'd like to see in our
   spec, we can put those in as notes
   ... i've put in some, but i'll need to check if they've covered
   everything that's mentioned
   ... maybe we should put a chapter at the beginning about the
   rendering model
   ... in that section, we'd describe how the rendering happens
   ... elaborate on the note in the introduction, and explain what
   happens when you have filters/compositing/clipping interacting with
   perspective/3d transforms
   ... e.g. explain what order they occur in (transform then filter, or
   vice versa)

   <anthony>
   [12]http://dev.w3.org/SVG/modules/transforms/SVGTransforms.html

     [12] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/modules/transforms/SVGTransforms.html

   AG: in the intro so far, the last paragraph has a bit about the
   rendering model
   ... that look ok?

   CM: looks ok to me

   DS: and me. it begins to address the issue.

   AG: should i put in this additional Rendering section?

   ED: sounds like a good idea
   ... having a note in there for now would be fine

   DS: we should schedule a call with emmons to discuss layeredG

   AG: i'm in favour of a property rather than an element

   ED: me too

   DS: and me. the functionality would be the same though; we should
   still discuss it with andrew.

   AG: i have an action to propose wording

   DS: you can start putting in wording about shifting things around in
   the rendering tree

   <anthony> [13]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2482

     [13] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2482

   DS: then andrew can talk with us about implementation experience

   AG: should i fold some use cases & requirements in to that document
   for z-index?

   DS: yes, cover the 3d case
   ... but also say that it could be reused for 2d z-index
   ... are we planning on making the 3d transforms completely its own
   spec... what does is it a diff from?
   ... are the transforms in 1.2T exactly the same as those in 1.1?

   AG: the only thing different is the ability to specify an offset

   ED: there is the ref() transform thing yes

   DS: so i think we should make transforms be the single place to
   define it

   AG: a chapter in core?

   DS: we don't want people wondering if it applies to 1.1 or 1.2T
   separately

   ED: we still need some coordination with the CSS WG

   DS: we could split into two specs, 2d transforms and 3d transforms
   ... but i don't see why we'd want to do that

   ED: i wonder if 2d transforms could be part of core instead of being
   a separate spec

   <scribe> ACTION: Anthony to note Dean's issues about the rendering
   model, compat with OpenVG, etc. in the Transforms spec [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-svg-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2491 - Note Dean's issues about the
   rendering model, compat with OpenVG, etc. in the Transforms spec [on
   Anthony Grasso - due 2009-03-19].

   RESOLUTION: We will publish Tranforms once ACTION-2491 is complete

Vector effects

   ED: any edits been made?
   ... not since february, it seems
   ... do we need to discuss these comments?
   ... we should wait for chris i guess

Compositing

   <ed__>
   [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/022
   9.html

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/0229.html

   ED: there were some comments. have you had a chance to make edits?

   AG: not yet
   ... i think you're right saying that "group image canvas" isn't
   defined anywhere
   ... should i just put in what the term means, or what sort of
   wording?

   ED: some sort of definition of what it means
   ... i suppose it's like the "temporary canvas" (or whatever) from
   SVG 1.1

   AG: put that in the intro, or the rendering model section?

   ED: might be good to collect all the definitions at the beginning
   somewhere

   AG: with the percentage background, that's a separate alpha channel,
   so i'll add a definition for that as well

   ED: wasn't sure if that contained colours or just the alpha

   AG: i'll put a definition in for that as well
   ... for comment #2, i think the reason we did the equations that way
   was they were already that way to begin with
   ... so i didn't bother updating them to MathML
   ... for the first draft, is it ok to leave the equations like that?
   and put in MathML later?

   ED: yes. you might want to replace the dots with a proper
   multiplication sign.
   ... having links to definitions would be handy, since the equations
   are spread out over the spec

   AG: yep

   <scribe> ACTION: Anthony to address Erik's Compositing comments in
   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/022
   9.html [recorded in
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-svg-minutes.html#action03]

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/0229.html

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2492 - Address Erik's Compositing comments
   in
   [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/022
   9.html [on Anthony Grasso - due 2009-03-19].

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/0229.html

   <anthony> ISSUE-2095?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-2095 -- Algorithm for soft-light blend mode --
   RAISED

   <trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2095

     [19] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2095

   <anthony> ACTION-2427?

   <trackbot> ACTION-2427 -- Anthony Grasso to use the formulae from
   ISSUE-2095 to update the Compositing module -- due 2009-02-05 --
   OPEN

   <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2427

     [20] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2427

   AG: those can probably be closed, though i haven't tested them
   ... the equations from benjamin came from the pdf spec too
   ... he said he'd post the correct equations from the iso spec

   DS: if we don't have them in our spec, then they're not royalty free
   ... we can't make a normative reference

   ED: we could publish the original equations with notes to say that
   they might not be compatible with ISO/PDF

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Anthony to address Erik's Compositing comments in
   [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/022
   9.html [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-svg-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: Anthony to note Dean's issues about the rendering
   model, compat with OpenVG, etc. in the Transforms spec [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-svg-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: Doug to take the existing commented out SVG in
   text/html spec text and put it in the wiki [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-svg-minutes.html#action01]

     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/0229.html

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 21:24:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 March 2009 21:24:24 GMT