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

{minutes} 9 December 2010 SVG WG telcon

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 21:40:04 +0000
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <104E6B5B6535E849970CDFBB1C5216EB3CBBB604@TK5EX14MBXC136.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html




- DRAFT -
SVG Working Group Teleconference
09 Dec 2010

Agenda<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0209.html>

See also: IRC log<http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-irc>

Attendees
Present
heycam, adrianba, pdengler, ed, +39.537.7.aaaa, Shepazu, ChrisL
Regrets
Chair
Erik Dahlstrom
Scribe
Adrian Bateman
Contents

  *   Topics<http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#agenda>
     *   SVG 1.1F2 progress<http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#item01>
     *   Test Suite<http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#item02>
     *   SVG elements in HTML <head><http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#item03>
  *   Summary of Action Items<http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

________________________________

ed: agenda is short, agreed on the last telcon to focus on 1.1
... need to see what progress we've made
SVG 1.1F2 progress

<ed> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Full_11#Remaining_work_for_SVG1.1F2


ed: if we could go through the list from top to bottom

<ed> ISSUE-2339?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2339 -- Last Call Comment: definition of azimuth, elevation for feDistantLight -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2339


ISSUE-2339?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2339 -- Last Call Comment: definition of azimuth, elevation for feDistantLight -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2339


heycam: anthony said he'd get to this later today

ed: think this is one that i think i wrote tests for but not sure
... might be one we can put in and not have a test ready for initial testing phase
... okay, so progress on that one

ISSUE-2334?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2334 -- Last Call Comment: filter primitive subregion and feGaussianBlur, feTile and infinite filter input images -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2334


ed: this one i've been working on a bit today, i commited some changes for the second half to clarify
... the first part is not yet addressed but we have an agreement on how it will be resolved and i started with some tests to see what implementations are doing at the moment
... this is one i think we will need tests for
... i don't want to put something in the spec before i have something ready in tests

heycam: so you'll be able to do this tomorrow?

ed: yes, that's my plan

ISSUE-2335?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2335 -- Last Call Comment: Clarify feConvolveMatrix bias property -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2335


ed: i had an action and so did anthony - my action is closed because i think anthony's to put in the wording, he has been following up on this to get agreement
... i saw a new test was added on this

<scribe> ACTION: ed to review the test for ISSUE-2335 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2919 - Review the test for ISSUE-2335 [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-12-16].

ed: not sure if this is the one anthony said he commited changes to the spec
... yeah, think this is one of them

ISSUE-2338?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2338 -- Last Call Comment: type of feFunc* -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2338


tav: it's done

ed: marked that one as being done in tracker

heycam: does it have all the comments for disposition of comments?

ed: yes, when we do the extraction of tracker it will be okay
... but we need to go through the remaining issues and ensure they have the notes but we can leave that for now

heycam: does this need to be done in time for the publication?

chrisl: that needs to be done before the transition request?

heycam: does the transition involve a phone call?

chrisl: yes

heycam: we haven't planned for that and if the pub deadline is wednesday we need to that before

chrisl: we need to show we've exited LC and CR - could be one meeting to do both

shepazu: that'll be team contact and maybe the chairs and the director and domain lead
... probably plh, ralph and either chris and/or doug
... probably won't be able to schedule at this stage

chrisl: we need to go to the chairs and there needs to be notice for people to object if they feel comments not dealt with

heycam: that's unfortunate

shepazu: we won't be able to publish but we can do all the other steps

heycam: okay

shepazu: so we'll publish in early january

<ChrisL> 31 January, in answer to the question

ed: think we should aim for both disposition of comments and implementation report before christmas then

<ChrisL> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2010OctDec/0003.html


heycam: think that's feasible because working hard we would have met the wednesday deadline

ed: aiming for something earlier helps to get done

heycam: if we have an extra couple of weeks then we might consider fixing other things in the tests

chrisl: would much rather see people running this sooner so we have a feel for where we are
... we don't know how many tests we have where no one passes yet

ISSUE-2343?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2343 -- Last Call Comment: 15.12 Filter primitive ‘feComposite’ formula -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2343


<ChrisL> we can easily run spot rechecks as needed for tests where we find bugs

ed: this one was done - not sure if the issue itself was updated
... yeah, we still need approval of response

heycam: is there a minimum amount of time we need to give commenters to respond?

<ChrisL> well, a reasonable time. some days typically

ed: i don't think the remaining issues are that hard to resolve
... not sure if new tests are needed - we can work this out in the coming days
... we'll ask anthony if there are new tests needed, seems mostly clarifications

ISSUE-2346?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2346 -- Last Call Comment: previous discussion about filterRes -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2346


ed: i've closed this

ISSUE-2351?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2351 -- Last Call Comment: Clarify that units are required on <length>s in style attribute; fix examples in text. -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2351


ed: i didn't close the issue - not 100% if done

tav: yes, it was done

ed: okay, i'll close then
... we should keep issues open so we can more easily extract them

ISSUE-2364?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2364 -- Last Call Comment: SVG 1.1 may be ambiguous about the root element acting as a proximal event target -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2364


shepazu: i'm working on this one - apparently svg doesn't use the term hit-testing so looking at a definition for that
... not done yet but i expect to have submitted it to cvs today and be ready for review

heycam: who's comment was it?

shepazu: there were several - not sure if it was a last call issue - don't think it was
... came about because of discussion after last call about whether the svg root should intercept pointer events
... two different contexts, inline or embedded by reference

<ChrisL> Cam, see http://www.w3.org/2010/09/SVG1.1SE-LastCall/ for the modified disco.xsl and some sparse documentation in getxml.html

heycam: so what were the decisions?

shepazu: the interaction section mixes a bunch of things including action processing order and we decided that we were going to clarify the section on ui events

heycam: not sure if we have tests for this

shepazu: we probably don't but not sure if the changes i am making will result in tests, probably but i haven't looked to see if there are tests yet
... i need to make sure there are tests that do check this

heycam: there are 3 tests that may be testing something around here

ISSUE-2368?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2368 -- Problems with grammars for numbers -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2368


<heycam> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0191.html


heycam: i couldn't see who was the original commentor - the issue was that the grammar for the points production for polygon and polyline; if you don't use a . in the number you are required to use an exponent
... think it's because floating point and integers are separate and if you only look at the fp production then you might think integers are missed out
... but if you take them both together then it's fine
... waiting for feedback

ISSUE-2384?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2384 -- Order of rx / ry computation for rounded rects -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2384


pdengler: i think the clarification makes sense - it's ambiguous without it
... we should update the tests but we don't know if we'll be able to fix it on our side

heycam: do you agree with the proposed fix but don't have time to fix?

pdengler: yes

heycam: will you be able to fix in the future?

pdengler: we'd want to get to it, yes

heycam: think it's an edge case

ed: yeah, it won't be noticeable to most people and it's possible to work around

pdengler: true

<scribe> ACTION: heycam to add the wording and fix the test for ISSUE-2384 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2920 - Add the wording and fix the test for ISSUE-2384 [on Cameron McCormack - due 2010-12-16].

ISSUE-2391?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2391 -- Last Call Comment: better changes appendix -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2391


chrisl: going through all the logs to find all the changes since last publication is taking time

heycam: is this something you're part way through?

chrisl: not started yet, don't know if anyone has updated the appendix and should be able to start again

pdengler: when we last looked it hadn't been updated

chrisl: have to go through the CVS change log and read the diff and summarise the change
... yes, you can pick the starting point
... we got a comment saying the changes appendix needs to be better, for the patent policy we need the list of changes from the last time we published
... because any new features added after LC doesn't get covered
... so we need to show no new features were added and just clarifications
... that part is fine but the 'better' appendix is more work
... the current version is less detailed than what was asked for in the comment
... to turn it into a reference for someone that knows the orginal edition and want to just know what has changed
... we pushed it back to the commenter
... but they haven't got to it

ed: i dealt with the other two remaining issues
... is there anything else we need to do with the spec that isn't listed here?

heycam: i remember noticing at one stage that the style for the dom method summaries was looking good in some browsers but not in others
... i want to make sure it looks alright in most browsers - just a one off quick check at the end when we're ready

ed: just trying to make sure we don't have any surprises, that's all
Test Suite

<ed> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Full_11#Testsuite_issues


ed: tried to keep track of issues on this wiki page

<ed> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/htmlObjectMiniApproved


ed: one thing to note is that i have only kept this one updated and only contains the tests we have accepted
... the other harnesses include draft tests including some not reviewed
... this is the official one for the implementation reports

heycam: does this mean we won't have new accepted tests?

ed: i think we have to be open to accept some new ones or possibly dropping tests back to draft
... don't think it's possible to say until we've done the testing and see where we are
... it may show issues we've missed - i think this harness and the tests are in good shape
... and it's useful to run the tests and learn about any issues left to fix

heycam: i think there are only a couple that need changes
... 99% of the tests are fine regardless of any ambiguities in the pass criteria

<ChrisL> Updated the disposition of comments - http://www.w3.org/2010/09/SVG1.1SE-LastCall/dump.html


heycam: so i agree we can do the run through and if there are substantial changes to the tests we can run those individually

chrisl: there was a discussion of bidi include testing arabic - was testing two things
... so i made it like the 1.2 test that was simpler

<heycam> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/imagePatches/text-intro-06-t.png


heycam: because i wasn't sure if the test required a particular font i couldn't tell if it was a font problem

chrisl: the reference images should be good references with the right font

ed: regarding bidi and text anchor we made clarifications in 1.2 and we need to bring this back so the specs are compatible

chrisl: 1.1 1st edition had some well meaning but incorrect text

ed: chrisl, will you do the back porting?

chrisl: i could look at this, do you know where it is?

ed: i sent mail to the list with the change list - it's multiple changes but should be able to figure it out

<scribe> ACTION: chrisl to bring the 1.2 changes for bidi and text anchor back to the 1.1 spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2921 - Bring the 1.2 changes for bidi and text anchor back to the 1.1 spec [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-12-16].

heycam: as part of this will you look at the tests?

chrisl: i started this by simplifying the tests, made some new tests that used a WOFF font (unapproved)
... it's there so eventually we can have better tests without having to download and install fonts
... -06, -11, and -12
... -06 was the only approved one, the others won't be in the implementation report - just so we remember

heycam: does -06 require woff?

chrisl: no, it still uses platform font, just simplifies by only looking for mandatory ligature

pdengler: on textintro-01, i got lost looking at the test on the site
... is it that the reference images haven't been regenerated?

chrisl: this is -06 we're talking about
... i've checked in a ref image sitting in the image patches directory but someone is going to have to run the build scripts for the harness

<ed> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/htmlObjectMiniApproved/text-intro-01-t.html


heycam: comparing -01 and -04, not sure why there is combining in one and not the other

<scribe> ACTION: chrisl to fix the text-intro-04 test with feedback that has been around a little while [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2922 - Fix the text-intro-04 test with feedback that has been around a little while [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-12-16].

<ChrisL> ARJ> In the Yiddish example, U+05D0 HEBREW LETTER ALEF is followed by U+05B8

<ChrisL> ARJ> HEBREW POINT QAMATS. The qamats is a non-spacing mark and should be

<ChrisL> ARJ> positioned below the alef, yet in the reference image, it is positioned on

<ChrisL> ARJ> the left side.

heycam: it takes a long time to run through the tests - it's hard to see sometimes if there is a pass

chrisl: yes, sometimes you have to reload several times, which might have been a mistake

<ChrisL> the ones with multiple animations would be better split into separate tests, if you have to hit reload anyway

<general discussion about lessons learned and test first methodology>

ed: in order to run the test suite, do we need to generate the xml files?
... anthony generated the reporting files, maybe i can rerun the scripts
... the problem is last time it included some draft status tests and i'm not sure if they have been updated
... i can look tomorrow - probably not that hard to regenerate the status file
... makes sense to see which revision we test so we know if we have to go back

heycam: do we have a general rule if the revision number doesn't matter that's okay

ed: yes, the revision numbers are not part of the tests

<scribe> ACTION: ed to regenerate the test status file and make sure it only contains accepted tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2923 - Regenerate the test status file and make sure it only contains accepted tests [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-12-16].

ed: i will send mail to the list once the status file is done

heycam: with animate-element-77, i was asking about whitespace causing things to be in the wrong, firefox is wrong but the test isn't trying to test whitespace

ed: if we can leave the test as is for now that is better, i would like to have more tests in future for whitespace

heycam: okay
... the other ones i added are just tweaking the pass criteria to make it clearer

ed: when i went through the suite i saw about 20 tests that still had red in - better than we were
... think it's fine to start running through the suite, if there are any issues left we may need to make some more changes

<ChrisL> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/text-dom-01-f.svg


chrisl: seems to be using Arial - not sure if the script is expecting the metrics of Arial

ed: tried to avoid using Arial where possible but there are some cases where it is needed
... this is a draft test

chrisl: i could respond and say it was a draft, but it was raised as a comment
... okay, it's a draft, i'll leave that one

heycam: just want to ask about the woff conversion again

chrisl: i've done some more and checked them in, still some to do, some of the tests i changed the font because it was easier than converting the svg font
... still have three left to do, the rest are done now

heycam: only a few tests that rely on fonts that haven't been converted
... so patrick, when you run through if there are only a few it should be okay to go back to those

pdengler: yes
... we're still on track for giving results next week

chrisl: what implementation are you running - is it public or internal?

pdengler: it will be internal so we need to figure out how to get it to you

chrisl: need to get a version to me under member/team confidentiality for spot checking

pdengler: yes, we'll need to do this - just may take time
... for clarify, my test team monitors the working group mailing list so as soon as it is sent out that it is ready to go we'll start

heycam: so you'll run all the tests, create the implementation report, and then coordinate with chris?

pdengler: we'll run it as soon as we can and after that we'll get a build to chris

heycam: today after i've done the little issues, i'll mail out and say the tests are ready to run

pdengler: suspect we'll hit some problems and a few will need to be re-run anyway

ed: only thing missing is the xml file which is on me to figure out, will get it tomorrow morning

heycam: don't need it to start testing

ed: no, but good to get it done for later

heycam: sounds good

shepazu: another issue from whatwg that i'd like to briefly discuss

<shepazu> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0192.html

SVG elements in HTML <head>

shepazu: basically someone was doing svg and when tried to validate it then when put svg in body he could reference with use elements in other parts of html
... but if he put the svg inside the html it used up space and in the head it wouldn't validate

pdengler: why did it take up space?

heycam: because it's default CSS

chrisl: display:none should support this?

shepazu: could also say width height zero

chrisl: that might affect the viewport

shepazu: this is maybe stuff for the integration spec - i think we're going to have people that expect to be able to put things in the head that doesn't display unless you use it elsewhere

chrisl: we should push this back to the html wg and say it always has display:none when it goes in the head

ed: don't want to do subsetting

shepazu: no, we don't want to subset, any svg element should be allowed in the head
... should just be svg allowed in the head as chris said

pdengler: feels like we're creating work here

shepazu: no, i think this should fall out of the model - there is a quirk of the html spec that doesn't allow svg in the head

heycam: it's consistent with that you can't have things like paragraph in the head

chrisl: but html doesn't have the same reference model

pdengler: i think we should figure out a better model before we go an push on this - we should think about the bigger picture before making requests

shepazu: i disagree, i think you should be able to put it anywhere in the doc and use it anywhere

ed: and it works but just doesn't validate

shepazu: think it's not an architectural argument

pdengler: i think it goes to the fact there are concepts in svg that may make sense in html

shepazu: i think it's orthogonal to that - we can have a conversation about broader issues
... maybe html will eventually have a use element for re-use but that is orthogonal for whether svg is allowed in the head

pdengler: if you introduce this into html then wouldn't you have to make bigger changes to html and what can go in the head?

shepazu: i'd like to e-mail the html working group

ed: sounds like we don't have consensus yet but we could start the conversation

<discussion about whether html might have a use-like thing>

chrisl: html might add something but we already have one in svg
... so we should deal with the svg issue now

shepazu: i think this will be a common pattern - lots of people think this way

ed: just because something doesn't validate doesn't mean it isn't used

shepazu: i don't think the validation failure makes sense
... if in the future people decide to add something like this in html and the consequences in the head then that's a bigger issue

heycam: i hear patrick saying that we should be taking the wider issues into account so we don't make it harder in future

shepazu: i understand but i think they're orthogonal

heycam: so that's the disagreement

pdengler: how about we test the waters and see what they think?

shepazu: i'm fine with approaching the html wg and saying we see two ways to solve this, here's one and some people prefer the other
... the larger issue i'm concerned with is that every decision that we second guess, every little thing that we think have we thought this through then it costs us
... if this is going to cost an entire telcon then it's not worth it
... i am concerned with how long it takes to get to consensus on small details
... 1) are there going to be knock on effects for html in the future (if html introduces a reference mechanism like use)
... 2) are there perf issues with this

ed: the html wg could come back saying we think this has bad effects
... there needs to be a discussion on this

shepazu: we can ask the html wg if these two things will be a problem

ed: do we need a decision here today - can we assign the action to start the discussion

<scribe> ACTION: shepazu to send mail to HTML WG raising the issue of using SVG in the HTML head [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2924 - Send mail to HTML WG raising the issue of using SVG in the HTML head [on Doug Schepers - due 2010-12-16].

ed: let's try to get the final things fixed in the test suite tomorrow and run the tests next week

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: chrisl to bring the 1.2 changes for bidi and text anchor back to the 1.1 spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: chrisl to fix the text-intro-04 test with feedback that has been around a little while [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: ed to regenerate the test status file and make sure it only contains accepted tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: ed to review the test for ISSUE-2335 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: heycam to add the wording and fix the test for ISSUE-2384 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: shepazu to send mail to HTML WG raising the issue of using SVG in the HTML head [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action06]

[End of minutes]



-----Original Message-----
From: public-svg-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-svg-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cameron McCormack
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 2:48 PM
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Subject: Agenda, 9 December 2010 SVG WG telcon



Hi there.  Below is the agenda for the SVG WG telcon on Thursday 9 December at 20:00 UTC, which is:



  1200 San Francisco

  1500 Raleigh

  2000 UTC

  2100 Stockholm

  0700 Sydney (Friday)

  0900 Auckland (Friday)



Erik will be chairing.  This will be our last telcon before the publication request for SVG 1.1 Second Edition, so I would like to spend the time ensuring that we are on track for that.



If this discussion does not take the whole telcon time, I would suggest that we use the remaining time working on 1.1F2 stuff while everyone is on IRC.



Agenda:



* SVG 1.1F2 progress

  http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Full_11#Remaining_work_for_SVG1.1F2




  Remember that the plan was to finish all Second Edition related

  actions by this telcon, so if you have not yet done so, you have one

  day left. :-)



--

Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/





Received on Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:40:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 9 December 2010 21:40:47 GMT