W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Minutes Oct 28 2010 telcon

From: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:43:52 +0200
To: "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vla2ned4geuyw5@mbp-2.local>


and as text for the bots:


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

                                - DRAFT -


28 Oct 2010



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/10/28-svg-irc


           +1.425.868.aaaa, ed, heycam, pdengler, ChrisL, Shepazu,
           jwatt, tbah, anthony


           ed, heycam


      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]SVG 1.1 2nd Edition Test Suite Analysis
          2. [6]auckland f2f
          3. [7]TPAC
      * [8]Summary of Action Items



    <jwatt> Zakim: IPcaller is me

    <jwatt> Zakim: [IPcaller] is me

    <ed> scribeNick: ed

SVG 1.1 2nd Edition Test Suite Analysis

    <scribe> chair: heycam

    PD: good thread on the mailinglist

    CM: maybe i've been out of the loop for a bit

    CL: the naming convention is what we've been used to date, just the
    section in the spec
    ... what's wrong with that?

    PD: don't disagree with that... the problem is if ppl look at these
    tests and try to judge if browsers support svg, because of the file
    ... my solution is: rename the tests... or if that's a problem,
    ...[scribe missed]
    ... many ppl are going to see these tests

    CL: if the tests are testing things that aren't in the section in
    the spec that the filenaming suggests
    ... some tests use animation, but they're not particularly testing
    animation, but other things

    PD: i don't want devs to look at e.g struct-* and IE or FF fails
    ... testing animating colors and gradient, just letting people
    understand the test uses e.g colors AND animations AND fonts

    CM: if people are making that jump, if some tests fail the whole
    spec is not interoperable...

    PD: a fourth suggestion is to make the implementation report
    categorize the tests

    DS: is anyone suggesting something else?

    CL: we're missing a category for combinations of features

    <pdengler> >>> The SVG Working Group could modify the conformance
    template to re-categorize these tests into their appropriate area.

    PD: we're close, i don't want to hold back process
    ... the modules browsers get to last should be categorized, like
    fonts, or filters, or animation...
    ... there should be exceptions, to not confuse developers

    CL: some tests uses svgfonts because they're helpful for knowing
    exact metrics in advance
    ... some tests will still pass even if svgfonts are not supported
    ... tried to convert svg -> woff and adding that to one test
    ... trying to figure out how to do that
    ... we could add woff fallback fonts in css

    PD: so for the compositing test svgfonts are not really required
    ... concerned that woff isn't yet a standard
    ... don't understand the pushback on renaming tests

    CL: we decided already that woff fonts will be mandated by SVG2
    ... so i'm not too concerned about those

    DS: we need reliable fonts to give the expected appareance on
    particular tests
    ... how best to achieve that passing criteria / that effect?

    CL: we've already done that for one of the tests, using ahem
    ... and we have an svg ahem
    ... both look the same
    ... both provide the same end result

    PD: if other vendors agree adding more fallback fonts sounds good

    DS: don't think this is a point of contention

    PD: would like us to address this concern this for SMIL

    CM: some tests use smil for mechanical reasons, just for generating
    events at particular times
    ... [missed] so you basically want the renaming to happen?

    CL: renaming the tests is probably easier than recategorizing the

    DS: there's a bit of work
    ... to do this
    ... the tests are approved, but going through substituting the
    ... if MS has resources available to help with that that would be

    PD: sure
    ... CL was going to help to add WOFF to some tests

    DS: if you are renaming tests, some tests have dependencies
    ... maybe some tests need to be rewritten
    ... maybe to remove use of some particular feature

    PD: i'll take each test that depends on smil, and split out the smil

    CL: one test was testing unsuspendRedraw, that could probably be
    rewritten as a script test

    PD: i'll do what you want

    CM: renaming the test first, making changes later

    DS: have we studied what level of support is required for passing a

    CL: we tried, but then we started to assume that more and more
    things were there

    DS: agree with patrick that filters animation and fonts are
    ... so putting them in a higher category seems reasonable

    ED: i disagree, all the mobile implementations did animations and
    fonts, filters sure, those are harder (and harder still to do well
    on old mobile platforms)

    CM: we could have levels of test, one simple, one hard, or several
    levels of passing (?)

    PD: tests that use smil and something else we will propose a

    DS: renaming the tests is my proposal
    ... don't want tests removed, rather have substitute tests added

    PD: pulling out non-essential smil

    DS: creating alternate tests, anything that uses animation should be
    named something animation
    ... this topic is becoming a permathread
    ... my proposal is that if any test uses animation, the test should
    be named something-animation
    ... in some way it's testing animation, regardless if that's the
    main point of the test

    ED: i like being able to quickly find tests based on a section in
    the spec
    ... keeping the naming scheme, but adding a suffix to indicate if
    it's using FOOBAR maybe could be ok...
    ... don't want most tests to start with animate-*

    <pdengler> pdengler: Rename all tests that have SMIL with a prefix
    of animate-elem-

    <pdengler> pdengler: For those tests that have merely a mechanical
    (non SMIL focussed test), in addition to the animate-elem rename,
    let's create a test without the SMIL elements

    ED: I disagree with the "Rename all tests that have SMIL with a
    prefix of animate-elem-"

    DS: i don't follow
    ... MS thinks that tests should only test one single thing

    AG: we could use the tiny12, and add a numerical series like 40x

    <pdengler> pdengler: MS does not think that a test should only test
    a signle thing as evidence by the tests we have submitted, that's
    not the poitn

    <heycam> ScribeNick: heycam

    DS: is it ok with you if we, for tests that have purely mechanical
    uses of animation, that we substitute new tests for those tests,
    keeping the existing tests in the test suite, but essentially
    marking them as having something to do with animation?

    ED: that part is fine with me
    ... i agree we should have tests not using SMIL as well
    ... there's more than one way of doing something, so why not test
    all of them

    DS: i agree there, so i'm not sure where the problem is

    ED: my problem is mostly with the prefix. i wouldn't like the test
    suite to have animate-elem-

    AG: that's why i made my suggestion [of 400-series tests]

    DS: how about combo-?

    AG: that'd break the test suite generation scripts

    DS: can't we fix the tests?

    AG: there's no chapter "combo-"

    CL: in that case don't give a link to the spec

    DS: or we all call them animate-elem- because they do have something
    to do with animation, and the scripts won't break

    ED: there are other tests that are testing other features as well,
    you have to rely on some things at some points

    DS: if you just prefix it with anim-elem something, and it also has
    the other names in it, will it break the scripts?
    ... here's the thing the tests are testing, and it also uses

    AG: the scripts are fixed to a certain number of dashes in the name,
    would have to go back to the scripts

    ED: maybe renaming the tests is not the best way to go about it.
    maybe changing the template to identify what's relied on.

    DS: that sounds like a lot more work

    ED: what would you rename it to then? who decides which feature it
    should be listed as, how long can filenames be?

    DS: so we have one vendor that has a problem with three features,
    and that's it. i don't see this being a situation where we're going
    to get out of control...

    ED: i think you are understating how much work it would be

    <ed> ED: it'd be really easy to write a script to pull out what
    elements a particular test uses, that could be a reasonable

    DS: what is your proposed solution?
    ... another one is to change these 30 tests completely, get rid of
    the ones that have smil in them, and then review and approve these
    30 tests, which we'll have to do anyway, and dump the old ones or
    put them as unapproved or something
    ... it's a solution i like less, then we don't have these
    combinatorial tests that we would otherwise be getting for free
    ... i think this is the main reason i object originally about having
    the file name being the identity of the test

    CM: patrick you were saying that it's the implementaiton report
    you're worrying about rahter than the test names, right?

    PD: yes
    ... my belief is that the impl report should easily reflect the
    features that folks can depend on. i realise that the tests are
    dense. i believe that people depend on text, and masking,
    gradients.... and firefox and we won't pass these. i don't care.
    ... i jsut want the impl report, at a glance, that it's easy to see
    that they don't pass because it's filters, or animation, that is











      [14] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/paths-dom-02-f.svg


      [15] http://www.w3.org/mid/20101028035114.GO10034@wok.mcc.id.au

    ED: i will look at that list of animation tests and get back to you,
    but i think it'll be ok
    ... it's just the ones targetting the animation report?

    PD: yes

    [we talked about the fonts one getting woff font fallback ones]

    PD: but if we can't do the woff thing, we might have to look at
    prefixing these too. but the woff solution would be perfect.

    <scribe> ACTION: Chris look at patd's font tests to add woff
    fallback [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-2887 - Look at patd's font tests to add
    woff fallback [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-11-04].

    <scribe> ACTION: Erik to look at the animate tests in patd's email
    for renaming [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-2888 - Look at the animate tests in patd's
    email for renaming [on Erik Dahlström - due 2010-11-04].

auckland f2f

    JW: looking through the dates people sent me, seems like the first 3
    weeks in march are the best
    ... i'd suggest the first week, which starts on monday 28th feb, and
    ends on friday 4th march

    CL: sounds good to me

    DS: i'll just check if i have any conflicts

    JW: this is probably one of the only opportunity to meet the people
    who are working on svg for mozilla, if that helps get you here

    DS: those dates work for me

    JW: pat do those dates matter to you?

    PD: no it won't change anything

    JW: i'll send an email about it starting on the 28th feb


    CL: i have a few constraints. thursday afternoon we've got fx tf
    ... other constraint is that svg and webfonts are meeting on the
    same day
    ... so i'll have to split my time between the 2 groups

    DS: friday?

    CL: i'm probably doing mornings and afternoons. so mornings in web
    fonts and afternoons in svg.

    CM: agenda link?

    <ed> [18]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Tpac2010_Agenda

      [18] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Tpac2010_Agenda

    ED: was hoping tav would have something with gradients research

    CL: we haven't really got submitted impl reports, so we can't really
    see how close we are to being done
    ... i'd really hoped we could know we're deeply in trouble or know
    we're almost right
    ... i want 1.1 2ed out the door and behind us

    CM: that's just relying on people running the tests, right?

    CL: yes, but we still haven't got a finalised set of tests
    ... as erik said recently we can start, we just update the impl
    report as things change

    PD: i like the idea of getting prepped our css discussion on
    thursday, i think we could break that out
    ... i sent a document to the fx mailing list that i'm not seeing yet

    ED: do people need to dial in to tpac?

    DS: maybe, timing might not work out for most people

    CL: i asked for a phone

    PD: i'm going to present on the html.next panel at tpac

    <shepazu> [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/

    <anthony> trackbot, end telcon

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Chris look at patd's font tests to add woff fallback
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Erik to look at the animate tests in patd's email for
    renaming [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([23]CVS log)
     $Date: 2010/10/28 21:35:43 $

      [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20
Check for newer version at [24]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002

      [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found ScribeNick: ed
Found ScribeNick: heycam
Inferring Scribes: ed, heycam
Scribes: ed, heycam
ScribeNicks: ed, heycam
Default Present: +1.425.868.aaaa, ed, heycam, pdengler, ChrisL, Shepazu
, jwatt, tbah, anthony
Present: +1.425.868.aaaa ed heycam pdengler ChrisL Shepazu jwatt tbah a

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

Agenda: [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDe
Got date from IRC log name: 28 Oct 2010
Guessing minutes URL: [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/28-svg-minutes.html
People with action items: at chris erik font look patd s tests

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2010/10/28-svg-minutes.html

    End of [27]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

      [27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 21:44:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:29:44 UTC