W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2010

Minutes, 15 April 2010 SVG telcon

From: Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:51:29 +0100
Message-ID: <4BC75221.3010908@jwatt.org>
To: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Hello www-svg,

The minutes are at http://www.w3.org/2010/03/15-svg-minutes.html - or they will
be sooner or later. Currently there seem to be some technical difficulties
generating the minutes.

Below you can find the minutes as text.



SVG Working Group Teleconference
15 Apr 2010

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
    [Microsoft], Doug_Schepers, [IPcaller], ed, anthony, jwatt
Regrets
Chair
    SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
    Jonathan Watt

Contents

    * Topics
         1. xlink:href
         2. background image compositing
         3. test case conflict
    * Summary of Action Items

<trackbot> Date: 15 April 2010

<scribe> scribe: Jonathan Watt

scribenick, jwatt

<scribe> scribenick: jwatt
xlink:href

PD: Opera allows you to set it via setAttributeNS, but in the case of an image
would not change the image
... in Firefox you can just use setAttribute with 'xlink:href'
... webkit you need to use setAttributeNS
... I do expect people to use setAttribute

<ed> http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/core.html#Namespaces-Considerations
(this is the section that defines the setAttribute method and namespaces)

PD: I want to also step back and reevaluate the use of baseVal and animVal in
general, since it's another example of the animated types making things more
complex for developers

<shepazu> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/DOM

DS: before we change the topic, are we going to allow 'src'?

PD: I was assuming that anywhere developers typically expect 'src', like on an
image, we'd use src, and anywhere they expect href, like on script, we'd use that

JW: I think for elements with no equivalent in HTML, we should use href, to make
the xlink:href easier

DS: so the only one we're advocating using 'src' for is image?
... <use> is much more like <image> than an anchor though
... I think we should raise this to a larger community
... or maybe it would just be easier for everyone if we said that in SVG
everything is just 'href'

(discussion about the pros/cons of different courses of action for various
compatibility/consistency approaches on various topics)

DS: I think that to be completely compatible with HTML is not practical, and to
do only a few things is not enough, so consistency within SVG is probably the
way to go

ED: I think we should have a wiki page to sort out the issues and come to a
conclusion

<ed> ED: a possible option could be to introduce an <img> element that has a
'src' attribute, and then keep <image> consistent with SVG (or have just 'href')

<ed> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Brussels%2C_Belgium_F2F#Agenda

DS: I think we've hit some of the overlap between SVG and HTML: image, text
layout, anchor,...
background image compositing

<ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2010Apr/0057.html

<ed> ISSUE-2007

<ed> i have ACTION-2066 to resolve ISSUE-2188 will try to get it done for SVG
1.1F2, but if I don't get around to it it'll go into the filters 1.2 spec

<ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Jun/0007.html

ED: I will respond to roc's email

<patrickd> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2760
test case conflict

PD: the reason is that the spec says that if the attribute is not specified, the
affect is as if 100% is specified
... what does "as if" mean here? is the attribute then in the DOM?

ED: no, the implementation only acts as if that were the case

<ed>
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/htmlObject/struct-svg-01-f.html

<ed>
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/htmlObject/svgdom-over-01-f.html

JW: I'd like us to reconsider that decision
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 17:52:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:44 GMT