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

Re: Agenda, 2 March 2009 telcon

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:02:21 +1100
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090302220221.GA17647@arc.mcc.id.au>
and below as text:


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

                               - DRAFT -

                   SVG Working Group Teleconference

02 Mar 2009


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/0186.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/02-svg-irc


          ed_, heycam, jwatt, Shepazu





     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]SVG in text/html
         2. [6]CSS transforms
     * [7]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 02 March 2009

   Zakim: ??P1 in me

   so sad

   ah, ta

   <heycam> Scribe: Jonathan

   <heycam> ScribeNick: jwatt

SVG in text/html


      [8] http://www.w3.org/mid/20090225231009.GD22306@arc.mcc.id.au

   CM: I misread part of the text in HTML5 in that email
   ... about the xmlns attribute
   ... I thought you needed to include the xmlns attribute to make it
   ... but actually you can omit it, or else specify it with the
   correct value
   ... only then is in conformisg

   <heycam> s/then.*/then is it conforming/

   CM: to be consistent with our comments on the xmlns:xlink, we would
   want it to be a parse error if omitted

   JW: yeah, I think that would be better


      [9] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG_in_text-html_2009


     [10] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Talk:SVG_in_text-html_2009

   ED: I added a bunch of comments on the wiki talk page
   ... one on the xlink

   <ed_> There are SVG images with xmlns:xlink="&ns_XLink;" commonly
   produced by Illustrator, do we want to break those? Relates to the
   point about xmlns:xlink and breaking on bogus values.

   DS: but that's not bogus
   ... if it treats it as a macro, the parser never sees that

   ED: but you'd need to define it in the HTML code

   DS: okay in this case it is bogus, right

   CM: I don't think that newer versions of Illustrator do that

   DS: I think that's right, it's an old practice

   <ed_> first point on

     [11] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Talk:SVG_in_text-html_2009

   ED: we may not need to ask for unquoted attributes etc. to be
   non-conforming, since authors could just validate their content as
   XHTML+SVG to get those warnings

   DS: I don't think that solves the problem - what if their is some
   HTML that doesn't validate as XHTML but that has some SVG in it
   ... it also implies two different tokenizing models
   ... I guess I'm wordering since the tokenizer in HTML5 does
   case-folding, but I guess in XHTML it does not

   CM: yes

   DS: are we going to see the case where inline SVG doesn't work
   because of whether the HTML is served as text/html or XHTML?

   CM: as long as you use the XML compatible syntax in HTML, I can't
   think of anything specific that would break like that

   DS: if you're serving documents for IE as text/html, but serving to
   everyone else as XML, then you may not be able to predict that your
   content will work
   ... maybe scripts will break due to changes to the HTML parts of the
   DOM tree?
   ... I'm not sure this is something we can solve
   ... we maybe need to just keep talking to the HTML WG about this

   ED: so are we going to still ask for the xmlns attributes to be
   required for conformance?

   DS: I think we should

   ED: so moving on, should we go with all lowercase attributes in

   DS: I think we should for two reasons
   ... it makes writing SVG as XML or text/html easier
   ... and since CSS and SVG are converging on a number of features, we
   should be as CSS friendly as we can

   ED: yes
   ... we should add that to our email

   CM: for element names that don't clash, case insensitivity of CSS
   selectors shouldn't be a problem
   ... I worry about consistency though - e.g. if we introduce a new
   filter primitive element
   ... it would be a pain to remember which are lowercase and which are

   DS: I think we should certainly do it for attributes

   ED: so the third point

   <shepazu> for casing elements, I don't have a strong opinion, but we
   should definitely avoid name clashes... even though namespaces can
   solve the technical part, it can still be confusing for authors

   <shepazu> I also think that going forward, we should consider
   allowing geometric attributes to be styled (and animated) by CSS...
   things like x, y, width, and height

   ED: ...
   ... fifth point: not parsing the contents of SVG <title> as HTML

   CM: we are agreed on just having plain text inside

   ED: so sixth point: xml declaration encoding detection when the root
   element is <svg>
   ... I was asked for numbers on the number of SVG documents that that
   have characters outside the win-1252 range

   CM: so you're saying that people won't have the xml declaration if
   it's UTF-8

   <ed_> <svg><b>foo

   <ed_> <svg></svg>foo

   ED: seventh point: non-SVG in SVG, when SVG is the root, but with
   our changes to say that there is no implied <html> and <body>
   inserted in - the non-SVG would break out back to the HTML, but
   there would then be no HTML to break to

   <heycam> <svg><b>foo</b></svg>

   CM: you can still have well formed XML
   ... but you'd still need somewhere for it to be a child of
   ... I think we're going to have to take some of these to the mailing
   list to discuss further
   ... we should get other things done just now

   <heycam> ACTION: Erik to move his seven points to the main text/html
   proposal wiki page [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2483 - Move his seven points to the main
   text/html proposal wiki page [on Erik Dahlström - due 2009-03-09].

CSS transforms


     [13] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/CSS-Transforms-Review

   <heycam> DS: i'll send that in today

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Erik to move his seven points to the main text/html
   proposal wiki page [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Monday, 2 March 2009 22:03:04 UTC

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