W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Minutes, May 13 2009 telcon

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 18:05:12 +1000
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090513080512.GA19219@arc.mcc.id.au>


      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                   SVG Working Group Teleconference

13 May 2009


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009AprJun/0124.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-svg-irc


          ed, jwatt, anthony, heycam

          Chris, Doug




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]SVG Open F2F
         2. [6]Module updates
         3. [7]Errata progress
     * [8]Summary of Action Items

   ok brb

   <trackbot> Date: 13 May 2009

   <scribe> Scribe: Cameron

   <scribe> ScribeNick: heycam

SVG Open F2F

   ED: i got a question from ruud about when the wg was meeting
   ... maybe we should discuss dates

   CM: ruud said doug said probably after svg open

   AG: it's useful to have it before, since then we can get things done
   before the conference

   ED: i'd agree that it'd be better to have it before
   ... svg open is oct 2-4
   ... friday-sunday
   ... having it the week before then, monday-thursday, would be fine
   with me
   ... i.e. from sep 28

   AG: what about sat-wed, to have a break in between?

   ED: yes that'd work

   CM: i'd rather a break in between too

   ED: i'm not sure if there are any conflicting meetings
   ... be good to ask chris/doug to see if they have any problems with
   having the meeting before svg open
   ... if we feel that's the best plan
   ... also i'm wondering if we'll meet at the TPAC
   ... we did respond to the polls before saying that we wouldn't meet,
   and we'd prefer early in the following year
   ... just meeting a few of the groups
   ... since svg open and the TPAC meeting are relatively close is it
   worth travelling?

   CM: what are the tpac dates?

   ED: november
   ... 2-6 november
   ... and svg open is 2-4 october
   ... so it's pretty close

   AG: any reason why svg open was pushed back?

   ED: think some people were saying august wasn't a good time for

   CM: so we're meeting just 3 times this year? depends on when the
   possible mini-tpac would be i guess.
   ... difficult to travel again so soon

   ED: me too

   CM: be interesting to know what the other mini-meeting groups will

   ED: since they're not going to svg open, probably they don't have
   such a big problem to attend tpac

   AG: assuming i can travel, i'm not too fussed about it
   ... a pain to travel twice in 4 weeks, but i can do it
   ... i don't mind if it's shifted back either

   ED: for the svg open f2f, should i put the dates on the wiki as
   proposed dates? from sep 28?

   AG: i'd prefer sep 26
   ... how many days of meeting do we want?

   ED: where will we be meeting? would we book a hotel?

   CM: maybe mozilla?

   ED: i can check if opera have facilities
   ... i'll put sep 26-30 as the meeting dates, with one day rest
   before svg open

   <scribe> ACTION: Erik to mail Ruud about SVG Open F2F dates, CCing
   Doug and Chris [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2558 - Mail Ruud about SVG Open F2F dates,
   CCing Doug and Chris [on Erik Dahlström - due 2009-05-20].

   ED: jonathan, do you know if moz has offices we could meet in?

   <ed> trackbot, close ACTION-2555

   <trackbot> ACTION-2555 Write the proposal for the Working Group
   panel closed

Module updates

   ED: any new things happening?
   ... don't think i've seen anything
   ... i made some minor changes to the filters module

   AG: haven't done anything major yet, still doing investigations into
   a few things

Errata progress

   ED: the spec itself, is it ready for folding items in?

   CM: not yet

   AG: i've got a question on wording for the erratum i have to do


     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009Apr/0101.html

   AG: that's the original problem report

   <anthony> [11]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2268

     [11] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2268


     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009AprJun/0096.html

   AG: wondering what wording to replace with

   ED: in that url that's a summary of the behaviour in opera/batik
   ... i'm quite sure it was the same in firefox/safari too
   ... you could turn those two bullet points into wording

   CM: you could add a sentence after the existing one, to state
   whether the implicit linetos are relative or absolute, based on the
   relative-ness of the moveto command

   ED: you could say that an uppercase "M" means the implicit linetos
   are absolute, and a lowercase "m" means they are relative

   AG: i might add an example, too

   CM: i mailed ian jacobs to ask about publishing the second edition
   spec including changes that aren't in the errata document
   ... he said that's fine, as long as they aren't new features
   ... so basically, the same type of changes as in the errata
   ... the AC review of the PER is sufficient

   ED: are we freezing the errata document?

   CM: yes, after anthony's erratum is added

   <ed> [13]http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml

     [13] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml

   CM: the remaining unfinished errata can still be added to the spec
   directly, before it's published


     [14] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#svglength-clarification-and-exceptions

   ED: this one looks complete
   ... so it's adding the exception, and stating that the unitType is

   CM: yes, for the valueAsString attributes
   ... and there's the exceptions for the other two methods, below

   ED: looks ok

   CM: i changed the text just now to mention throwing if


   <ed> "Raised if unitType is not SVG_ANGLETYPE_UNKNOWN" should be
   "Raised if unitType is SVG_ANGLETYPE_UNKNOWN" ?

   ok fixed

   ED: any objection to moving it to proposed?

   none heard


     [15] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#clarify_implicit_lineto_commands_in_path_syntax

   RESOLUTION: We will clarify implicit linetos to be absolute or
   relative in line with current implementations


     [16] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#svgsvgelement-should-not-extend-viewcss-documentcss-or-documentevent

   ED: i think this one looks fine
   ... one minor detail
   ... why does this errata repeat the section about how SVGDocument
   implement DocumentEvent?

   and DocumentCSS?

   scribe: that's both in the new section B.6.4 and before the
   SVGDocument interface description

   CM: i don't mind to drop that paragraph and mention DocumentEvents
   in appendix B

   <scribe> ACTION: Cameron to modify the
   t erratum according to the minutes here [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2559 - Modify the
   t erratum according to the minutes here [on Cameron McCormack - due


     [18] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#usecurrentview-should-be-read-only

   ED: i agree with this one, any objections to moving it to proposed?

   AG: should be fine


     [19] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#currentscale-should-not-throw

   ED: i'm ok with this

   JW: what about when you assign NaN?

   CM: i think that falls under the same category of things in the
   ecmascript binding that isn't specified currently

   ED: ok, move it to proposed


     [20] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#allow-foreignobject-outside-switch

   ED: i agree with this one, to allow <foreignObject> as a child of
   any container element
   ... not just <switch>

   CM: these dtd fragments are going to disappear from the chapters
   when the second edition is published

   ED: move it to proposed if there are no objections


     [21] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#getbbox_clarification

   JW: do we say anything about calling getBBox() for elements outside
   the document

   CM: we do in tiny, but not in 1.1


     [22] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/coords.html#BoundingBox

   Elements and document fragments which derive from SVGLocatable but
   are not in the rendering tree, such as those in a 'defs' element or
   those which have been been created but not yet inserted into the
   DOM, must still have a bounding box. The geometry of elements
   outside the rendering tree must take into account only those
   properties and values (such as 'font-size') which are specified
   within that element or document fragment, or which have a lacuna
   value or an

   implementation-defined value.

   CM: i'm ok with this erratum

   ED: ok, move it to proposed

   <scribe> ACTION: Cameron to publish the errata after doing his other
   action [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2560 - Publish the errata after doing his
   other action [on Cameron McCormack - due 2009-05-20].

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Cameron to modify the
   t erratum according to the minutes here [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Cameron to publish the errata after doing his other
   action [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Erik to mail Ruud about SVG Open F2F dates, CCing Doug
   and Chris [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 08:06:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:29:41 UTC