W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: agenda, 7 July 2011 SVG WG telcon

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:07:48 +0200
Message-ID: <765302084.20110707190748@w3.org>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org
On Thursday, July 7, 2011, 4:34:27 AM, Cameron wrote:

CM> * Updated FXTF Worksheet
CM>   http://www.w3.org/mid/CA325DEA.AAD6%25vhardy@adobe.com

I just wanted to report that this was discussed at the CSS WG call yesterday, and the proposal (joint specs, specs that require review) was accepted. So I have added them to the 'joint work' section of the draft CSS WG charter, and we can have the same list in the SVG WG charter. Thus, not much more to discuss here I think.

CM> * Agenda for the FXTF day, coordination with CSS WG

Microsoft confirmed that they would host that day, and I sent them our current registered attendance (11 people) for room booking and lunch purposes. This closes my 
ACTION-3054: Talk to Microsoft to see if they can host the joint FX meeting.

CM> * Moving forward with the OpenType/SVG Fonts proposal

I think this is a good proposal, and SVG WG should liaise with the OpenType people to ensure technical correctness, but its not an SVG WG deliverable as such. We could add this work explicitly in the charter under liaison.

To a certain extent it depends for success on whether the non-browser opentype implementors (renderers and authoring tools) pick up on it. I suspect this would be a 2-5 year process before we see it widely supported in all the wordprocessors, DTP tools and suchlike.

CM> * SVG 1.1 Second Edition

CM>   - last day for AC reps to respond

Response now looks OK, I see some recent responses.

CM>   - DTD files request:
CM> http://www.w3.org/mid/CALvn5ECQ8HqXdUcOK3yj5Qap=tZEJpnndWdqouN3EQsO+sD3Tw@mail.gmail.com

There was some confusion as to whether the DTD had actually changed from 1.1 first edition to second edition. I thought it had not, but Erik thought there were some DTD errata. It would be good to have this clarified. We can be sure that the Rec links to the corect place and that Murata-san gets the right DTD, especially as he plans to make a Relax NG schema from this.

CM> * www-svg discussions (which none of us have participated in yet):

CM>   - ICC profiles and compositing
CM> http://www.w3.org/mid/BC885F9E3DB48248A4C9FC7F2C57215C10877563@Hoefnix.dc.intranet

This is a good comment and I have been thinking about it but not replied yet. In general terms the comment is correct as it applies to SVG 1.1SE.

Some of the issues raised are addressed by the SVG Color spec. In particular this adds the option of CIELab as a rendering colour space, (which is used for compositing and interpolation) which is directly compatible with an ICC workflow which uses CIELab as the profile connection space.

The issue of the rendering intent for the input conversion from the specified colour space to CIELab is addressed (in SVG Color and in SVG 1.1) for cie-based color. It is not addressed for sRGB color, and I think that this could be explicitly clarified in the SVG Color spec.

The issue of the rendering intent for the output conversion from  CIELab to the device colour space is not addressed and is a problem, if the output device profile defines multiple rendering intents. This needs further discussion. I can add an editorial note to SVG Color noting this issue.

I can take the action item to respond to the commentor and another action item to make the spec changes.

 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 17:07:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:13 UTC