W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

RE: Agenda Proposal for TPAC 2010

From: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:07:37 +0000
To: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4A2DB3AE4504E944AF122BBFBA7FBA1F54DAC397@TK5EX14MBXC112.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Thanks for responding and updating the agenda. See my responses below >>>

-----Original Message-----
From: public-svg-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-svg-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Erik Dahlstrom
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 4:04 PM
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Agenda Proposal for TPAC 2010

On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:00:38 +0100, Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> I know folks asked to update the Wiki.
...

Thanks, I've added it to the wiki:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Tpac2010_Agenda.


> I’ve reversed what I would have done on day 1 vs. day 2 because we 
> will want to front load the conversation with CSS.
>
> Agenda / Proposal for SVG TPAC Face to Face Agenda Pre Face-to-Face
> •	Establish Concrete Time to meet with CSS about “FX” specifications

ACTION-2878. Chris? It would be good if a reminder with the decided time could be sent to the public-fx mailinglist too.

> Day 1 – Center on Technology Prioritization / Integration
> •	1 Hour – Consider each of the high level scenarios from Belgium
> 	o	Revisit SVG Scenarios and Prioritize to 1 or 2
> 	o	Establish General Path of Investments from Priorities
> 	o	Identify owner(s) for guiding principles with dates

Are these the high level scenarios you refer to:

     http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/User_talk:Pdengler


In that case I suggest we give that a bit more visibility by moving it to a normal wiki page and link to it from the index page. It could probably also benefit from being split into several pages.
>>> Yes, I think that would be fine. I think the right thing would be to agree upon them officially and then move them.


> •3 hours - Combined Transforms / Transitions / Animations
> 	o	Feature Considerations (framed by animation write up)
...

I take it it's this one: http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/HTMLnext.pdf ?
>>> No, I just sent out the link to FX.  The new link is here: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/images/6/64/SVGCSSTPAC.pdf



> •4 Hours – Meet with CSS
> 	o	Discuss outcome of combined animation proposal
> 	o	Filters in HTML
> 		§	Examine Mozilla Proposal / Work

I think we should in that case examine the proposals from the CSS side as well.
>>> Sure, I just was raising it.

> 		§	Consider  <def> <use> architecture

Not clear on what you mean here, care to elaborate?
>>> I'm not sure :)  I think that the work I've seen and designs I have considered myself around filters made me think that the <def> construct is useful beyond filters.  Perhaps gradients, perhaps a larger <use> model in HTML.

> 		§	Are ‘canned’ CSS ‘effects’ just macros for chained SVG filters?

That was the original intention, but there have been requests for extending the syntax such that it can apply to various parts of the css boxes (e.g just apply to border, just apply to content).

> 		•	Are there new low level filters needed?

That depends on the previous question, if we introduce a css shorthand syntax the idea has been to reflect that in the markup - meaning that the
1.2 filters draft has a few new elements. One recent request was to allow selecting a particular channel as input, ISSUE-2380. I've heard people wanting transforms in some filter primitives.

Cheers
/Erik

--
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed



Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 08:08:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 November 2010 08:08:15 GMT