- From: Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:51:29 +0100
- 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 17:52:08 UTC