- From: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:43:52 +0200
- To: "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2010/10/28-svg-minutes.html
and as text for the bots:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
SV_MEETING_TITLE
28 Oct 2010
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0074.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/10/28-svg-irc
Attendees
Present
+1.425.868.aaaa, ed, heycam, pdengler, ChrisL, Shepazu,
jwatt, tbah, anthony
Regrets
Chair
Cameron
Scribe
ed, heycam
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]SVG 1.1 2nd Edition Test Suite Analysis
2. [6]auckland f2f
3. [7]TPAC
* [8]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<pdengler>
[9]http://player.microsoftpdc.com/Session/6b113af7-ba3e-44ae-bf8c-1f
394029cc18
[9]
http://player.microsoftpdc.com/Session/6b113af7-ba3e-44ae-bf8c-1f394029cc18
<jwatt> Zakim: IPcaller is me
<jwatt> Zakim: [IPcaller] is me
<ed> scribeNick: ed
SVG 1.1 2nd Edition Test Suite Analysis
<scribe> chair: heycam
PD: good thread on the mailinglist
CM: maybe i've been out of the loop for a bit
CL: the naming convention is what we've been used to date, just the
section in the spec
... what's wrong with that?
PD: don't disagree with that... the problem is if ppl look at these
tests and try to judge if browsers support svg, because of the file
naming
... my solution is: rename the tests... or if that's a problem,
...[scribe missed]
... many ppl are going to see these tests
CL: if the tests are testing things that aren't in the section in
the spec that the filenaming suggests
... some tests use animation, but they're not particularly testing
animation, but other things
PD: i don't want devs to look at e.g struct-* and IE or FF fails
... testing animating colors and gradient, just letting people
understand the test uses e.g colors AND animations AND fonts
CM: if people are making that jump, if some tests fail the whole
spec is not interoperable...
PD: a fourth suggestion is to make the implementation report
categorize the tests
DS: is anyone suggesting something else?
CL: we're missing a category for combinations of features
<pdengler> >>> The SVG Working Group could modify the conformance
template to re-categorize these tests into their appropriate area.
PD: we're close, i don't want to hold back process
... the modules browsers get to last should be categorized, like
fonts, or filters, or animation...
... there should be exceptions, to not confuse developers
CL: some tests uses svgfonts because they're helpful for knowing
exact metrics in advance
... some tests will still pass even if svgfonts are not supported
... tried to convert svg -> woff and adding that to one test
... trying to figure out how to do that
... we could add woff fallback fonts in css
PD: so for the compositing test svgfonts are not really required
... concerned that woff isn't yet a standard
... don't understand the pushback on renaming tests
CL: we decided already that woff fonts will be mandated by SVG2
... so i'm not too concerned about those
DS: we need reliable fonts to give the expected appareance on
particular tests
... how best to achieve that passing criteria / that effect?
CL: we've already done that for one of the tests, using ahem
... and we have an svg ahem
... both look the same
... both provide the same end result
PD: if other vendors agree adding more fallback fonts sounds good
DS: don't think this is a point of contention
PD: would like us to address this concern this for SMIL
CM: some tests use smil for mechanical reasons, just for generating
events at particular times
... [missed] so you basically want the renaming to happen?
CL: renaming the tests is probably easier than recategorizing the
tests
DS: there's a bit of work
... to do this
... the tests are approved, but going through substituting the
names...
... if MS has resources available to help with that that would be
good
PD: sure
... CL was going to help to add WOFF to some tests
DS: if you are renaming tests, some tests have dependencies
... maybe some tests need to be rewritten
... maybe to remove use of some particular feature
PD: i'll take each test that depends on smil, and split out the smil
stuff
CL: one test was testing unsuspendRedraw, that could probably be
rewritten as a script test
PD: i'll do what you want
CM: renaming the test first, making changes later
DS: have we studied what level of support is required for passing a
test?
CL: we tried, but then we started to assume that more and more
things were there
DS: agree with patrick that filters animation and fonts are
heavyduty
... so putting them in a higher category seems reasonable
ED: i disagree, all the mobile implementations did animations and
fonts, filters sure, those are harder (and harder still to do well
on old mobile platforms)
CM: we could have levels of test, one simple, one hard, or several
levels of passing (?)
PD: tests that use smil and something else we will propose a
solution
DS: renaming the tests is my proposal
... don't want tests removed, rather have substitute tests added
PD: pulling out non-essential smil
DS: creating alternate tests, anything that uses animation should be
named something animation
... this topic is becoming a permathread
... my proposal is that if any test uses animation, the test should
be named something-animation
... in some way it's testing animation, regardless if that's the
main point of the test
ED: i like being able to quickly find tests based on a section in
the spec
... keeping the naming scheme, but adding a suffix to indicate if
it's using FOOBAR maybe could be ok...
... don't want most tests to start with animate-*
<pdengler> pdengler: Rename all tests that have SMIL with a prefix
of animate-elem-
<pdengler> pdengler: For those tests that have merely a mechanical
(non SMIL focussed test), in addition to the animate-elem rename,
let's create a test without the SMIL elements
ED: I disagree with the "Rename all tests that have SMIL with a
prefix of animate-elem-"
DS: i don't follow
... MS thinks that tests should only test one single thing
AG: we could use the tiny12, and add a numerical series like 40x
<pdengler> pdengler: MS does not think that a test should only test
a signle thing as evidence by the tests we have submitted, that's
not the poitn
<heycam> ScribeNick: heycam
DS: is it ok with you if we, for tests that have purely mechanical
uses of animation, that we substitute new tests for those tests,
keeping the existing tests in the test suite, but essentially
marking them as having something to do with animation?
ED: that part is fine with me
... i agree we should have tests not using SMIL as well
... there's more than one way of doing something, so why not test
all of them
DS: i agree there, so i'm not sure where the problem is
ED: my problem is mostly with the prefix. i wouldn't like the test
suite to have animate-elem-
AG: that's why i made my suggestion [of 400-series tests]
DS: how about combo-?
AG: that'd break the test suite generation scripts
DS: can't we fix the tests?
AG: there's no chapter "combo-"
CL: in that case don't give a link to the spec
DS: or we all call them animate-elem- because they do have something
to do with animation, and the scripts won't break
ED: there are other tests that are testing other features as well,
you have to rely on some things at some points
DS: if you just prefix it with anim-elem something, and it also has
the other names in it, will it break the scripts?
... here's the thing the tests are testing, and it also uses
animation
AG: the scripts are fixed to a certain number of dashes in the name,
would have to go back to the scripts
ED: maybe renaming the tests is not the best way to go about it.
maybe changing the template to identify what's relied on.
DS: that sounds like a lot more work
ED: what would you rename it to then? who decides which feature it
should be listed as, how long can filenames be?
DS: so we have one vendor that has a problem with three features,
and that's it. i don't see this being a situation where we're going
to get out of control...
ED: i think you are understating how much work it would be
<ed> ED: it'd be really easy to write a script to pull out what
elements a particular test uses, that could be a reasonable
indicator
DS: what is your proposed solution?
... another one is to change these 30 tests completely, get rid of
the ones that have smil in them, and then review and approve these
30 tests, which we'll have to do anyway, and dump the old ones or
put them as unapproved or something
... it's a solution i like less, then we don't have these
combinatorial tests that we would otherwise be getting for free
... i think this is the main reason i object originally about having
the file name being the identity of the test
CM: patrick you were saying that it's the implementaiton report
you're worrying about rahter than the test names, right?
PD: yes
... my belief is that the impl report should easily reflect the
features that folks can depend on. i realise that the tests are
dense. i believe that people depend on text, and masking,
gradients.... and firefox and we won't pass these. i don't care.
... i jsut want the impl report, at a glance, that it's easy to see
that they don't pass because it's filters, or animation, that is
used
<ed>
[10]http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/implementation-repor
t.html
[10]
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/implementation-report.html
[11]http://www.w3.org/mid/4A2DB3AE4504E944AF122BBFBA7FBA1F54D8FB55@T
K5EX14MBXC114.r
[11]
http://www.w3.org/mid/4A2DB3AE4504E944AF122BBFBA7FBA1F54D8FB55@TK5EX14MBXC114.r
edmond.corp.microsoft.com
<shepazu>
[12]http://www.w3.org/mid/4A2DB3AE4504E944AF122BBFBA7FBA1F54D8FB55@T
K5EX14MBXC114.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
[12]
http://www.w3.org/mid/4A2DB3AE4504E944AF122BBFBA7FBA1F54D8FB55@TK5EX14MBXC114.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
<shepazu>
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/007
5.html
[13]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0075.html
<ed>
[14]http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/paths-dom-02-f.svg
[14] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/paths-dom-02-f.svg
[15]http://www.w3.org/mid/20101028035114.GO10034@wok.mcc.id.au
[15] http://www.w3.org/mid/20101028035114.GO10034@wok.mcc.id.au
ED: i will look at that list of animation tests and get back to you,
but i think it'll be ok
... it's just the ones targetting the animation report?
PD: yes
[we talked about the fonts one getting woff font fallback ones]
PD: but if we can't do the woff thing, we might have to look at
prefixing these too. but the woff solution would be perfect.
<scribe> ACTION: Chris look at patd's font tests to add woff
fallback [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/28-svg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2887 - Look at patd's font tests to add
woff fallback [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-11-04].
<scribe> ACTION: Erik to look at the animate tests in patd's email
for renaming [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/28-svg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2888 - Look at the animate tests in patd's
email for renaming [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-11-04].
auckland f2f
JW: looking through the dates people sent me, seems like the first 3
weeks in march are the best
... i'd suggest the first week, which starts on monday 28th feb, and
ends on friday 4th march
CL: sounds good to me
DS: i'll just check if i have any conflicts
JW: this is probably one of the only opportunity to meet the people
who are working on svg for mozilla, if that helps get you here
DS: those dates work for me
JW: pat do those dates matter to you?
PD: no it won't change anything
JW: i'll send an email about it starting on the 28th feb
TPAC
CL: i have a few constraints. thursday afternoon we've got fx tf
thing.
... other constraint is that svg and webfonts are meeting on the
same day
... so i'll have to split my time between the 2 groups
DS: friday?
CL: i'm probably doing mornings and afternoons. so mornings in web
fonts and afternoons in svg.
CM: agenda link?
<ed> [18]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Tpac2010_Agenda
[18] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Tpac2010_Agenda
ED: was hoping tav would have something with gradients research
CL: we haven't really got submitted impl reports, so we can't really
see how close we are to being done
... i'd really hoped we could know we're deeply in trouble or know
we're almost right
... i want 1.1 2ed out the door and behind us
CM: that's just relying on people running the tests, right?
CL: yes, but we still haven't got a finalised set of tests
... as erik said recently we can start, we just update the impl
report as things change
PD: i like the idea of getting prepped our css discussion on
thursday, i think we could break that out
... i sent a document to the fx mailing list that i'm not seeing yet
ED: do people need to dial in to tpac?
DS: maybe, timing might not work out for most people
CL: i asked for a phone
PD: i'm going to present on the html.next panel at tpac
<shepazu> [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/
[19] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/
<anthony> trackbot, end telcon
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Chris look at patd's font tests to add woff fallback
[recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/28-svg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Erik to look at the animate tests in patd's email for
renaming [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/28-svg-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.135
([23]CVS log)
$Date: 2010/10/28 21:35:43 $
_________________________________________________________
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20
Check for newer version at [24]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002
/scribe/
[24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Found ScribeNick: ed
Found ScribeNick: heycam
Inferring Scribes: ed, heycam
Scribes: ed, heycam
ScribeNicks: ed, heycam
Default Present: +1.425.868.aaaa, ed, heycam, pdengler, ChrisL, Shepazu
, jwatt, tbah, anthony
Present: +1.425.868.aaaa ed heycam pdengler ChrisL Shepazu jwatt tbah a
nthony
WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting
Agenda: [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDe
c/0074.html
Got date from IRC log name: 28 Oct 2010
Guessing minutes URL: [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/28-svg-minutes.html
People with action items: at chris erik font look patd s tests
[25]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0074.html
[26] http://www.w3.org/2010/10/28-svg-minutes.html
End of [27]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
--
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 21:44:30 UTC