- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:33:29 +0100
- To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, December 9, 2010, 10:40:04 PM, Adrian wrote:
AB> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html
AB>
(Adrian, the tracker system need a plain-text copy of the minutes, in the body of the email and not as an attachment, to be able to auto link to issues and actions).
SVG Working Group Teleconference
09 Dec 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0209.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-irc
Attendees
Present
heycam, adrianba, pdengler, ed, +39.537.7.aaaa, Shepazu,
ChrisL
Regrets
Chair
Erik Dahlstrom
Scribe
Adrian Bateman
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]SVG 1.1F2 progress
2. [6]Test Suite
3. [7]SVG elements in HTML <head>
* [8]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 09 December 2010
<scribe> ScribeNick: adrianba
<scribe> Scribe: Adrian Bateman
<scribe> Agenda:
[9]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0209
.html
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0209.html
ed: agenda is short, agreed on the last telcon to focus on 1.1
... need to see what progress we've made
SVG 1.1F2 progress
<ed>
[10]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Full_11#Remaining_work_fo
r_SVG1.1F2
[10] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Full_11#Remaining_work_for_SVG1.1F2
ed: if we could go through the list from top to bottom
<ed> ISSUE-2339?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2339 -- Last Call Comment: definition of azimuth,
elevation for feDistantLight -- open
<trackbot> [11]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2339
[11] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2339
ISSUE-2339?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2339 -- Last Call Comment: definition of azimuth,
elevation for feDistantLight -- open
<trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2339
[12] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2339
heycam: anthony said he'd get to this later today
ed: think this is one that i think i wrote tests for but not sure
... might be one we can put in and not have a test ready for initial
testing phase
... okay, so progress on that one
ISSUE-2334?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2334 -- Last Call Comment: filter primitive
subregion and feGaussianBlur, feTile and infinite filter input
images -- raised
<trackbot> [13]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2334
[13] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2334
ed: this one i've been working on a bit today, i commited some
changes for the second half to clarify
... the first part is not yet addressed but we have an agreement on
how it will be resolved and i started with some tests to see what
implementations are doing at the moment
... this is one i think we will need tests for
... i don't want to put something in the spec before i have
something ready in tests
heycam: so you'll be able to do this tomorrow?
ed: yes, that's my plan
ISSUE-2335?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2335 -- Last Call Comment: Clarify feConvolveMatrix
bias property -- raised
<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2335
[14] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2335
ed: i had an action and so did anthony - my action is closed because
i think anthony's to put in the wording, he has been following up on
this to get agreement
... i saw a new test was added on this
<scribe> ACTION: ed to review the test for ISSUE-2335 [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2919 - Review the test for ISSUE-2335 [on
Erik Dahlström - due 2010-12-16].
ed: not sure if this is the one anthony said he commited changes to
the spec
... yeah, think this is one of them
ISSUE-2338?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2338 -- Last Call Comment: type of feFunc* --
raised
<trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2338
[16] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2338
tav: it's done
ed: marked that one as being done in tracker
heycam: does it have all the comments for disposition of comments?
ed: yes, when we do the extraction of tracker it will be okay
... but we need to go through the remaining issues and ensure they
have the notes but we can leave that for now
heycam: does this need to be done in time for the publication?
chrisl: that needs to be done before the transition request?
heycam: does the transition involve a phone call?
chrisl: yes
heycam: we haven't planned for that and if the pub deadline is
wednesday we need to that before
chrisl: we need to show we've exited LC and CR - could be one
meeting to do both
shepazu: that'll be team contact and maybe the chairs and the
director and domain lead
... probably plh, ralph and either chris and/or doug
... probably won't be able to schedule at this stage
chrisl: we need to go to the chairs and there needs to be notice for
people to object if they feel comments not dealt with
heycam: that's unfortunate
shepazu: we won't be able to publish but we can do all the other
steps
heycam: okay
shepazu: so we'll publish in early january
<ChrisL> 31 January, in answer to the question
ed: think we should aim for both disposition of comments and
implementation report before christmas then
<ChrisL>
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2010OctDec/00
03.html
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2010OctDec/0003.html
heycam: think that's feasible because working hard we would have met
the wednesday deadline
ed: aiming for something earlier helps to get done
heycam: if we have an extra couple of weeks then we might consider
fixing other things in the tests
chrisl: would much rather see people running this sooner so we have
a feel for where we are
... we don't know how many tests we have where no one passes yet
ISSUE-2343?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2343 -- Last Call Comment: 15.12 Filter primitive
‘feComposite’ formula -- raised
<trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2343
[18] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2343
<ChrisL> we can easily run spot rechecks as needed for tests where
we find bugs
ed: this one was done - not sure if the issue itself was updated
... yeah, we still need approval of response
heycam: is there a minimum amount of time we need to give commenters
to respond?
<ChrisL> well, a reasonable time. some days typically
ed: i don't think the remaining issues are that hard to resolve
... not sure if new tests are needed - we can work this out in the
coming days
... we'll ask anthony if there are new tests needed, seems mostly
clarifications
ISSUE-2346?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2346 -- Last Call Comment: previous discussion
about filterRes -- raised
<trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2346
[19] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2346
ed: i've closed this
ISSUE-2351?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2351 -- Last Call Comment: Clarify that units are
required on <length>s in style attribute; fix examples in text. --
closed
<trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2351
[20] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2351
ed: i didn't close the issue - not 100% if done
tav: yes, it was done
ed: okay, i'll close then
... we should keep issues open so we can more easily extract them
ISSUE-2364?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2364 -- Last Call Comment: SVG 1.1 may be ambiguous
about the root element acting as a proximal event target -- raised
<trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2364
[21] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2364
shepazu: i'm working on this one - apparently svg doesn't use the
term hit-testing so looking at a definition for that
... not done yet but i expect to have submitted it to cvs today and
be ready for review
heycam: who's comment was it?
shepazu: there were several - not sure if it was a last call issue -
don't think it was
... came about because of discussion after last call about whether
the svg root should intercept pointer events
... two different contexts, inline or embedded by reference
<ChrisL> Cam, see [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/SVG1.1SE-LastCall/
for the modified disco.xsl and some sparse documentation in
getxml.html
[22] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/SVG1.1SE-LastCall/
heycam: so what were the decisions?
shepazu: the interaction section mixes a bunch of things including
action processing order and we decided that we were going to clarify
the section on ui events
heycam: not sure if we have tests for this
shepazu: we probably don't but not sure if the changes i am making
will result in tests, probably but i haven't looked to see if there
are tests yet
... i need to make sure there are tests that do check this
heycam: there are 3 tests that may be testing something around here
ISSUE-2368?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2368 -- Problems with grammars for numbers --
raised
<trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2368
[23] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2368
<heycam>
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/019
1.html
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0191.html
heycam: i couldn't see who was the original commentor - the issue
was that the grammar for the points production for polygon and
polyline; if you don't use a . in the number you are required to use
an exponent
... think it's because floating point and integers are separate and
if you only look at the fp production then you might think integers
are missed out
... but if you take them both together then it's fine
... waiting for feedback
ISSUE-2384?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2384 -- Order of rx / ry computation for rounded
rects -- raised
<trackbot> [25]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2384
[25] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2384
pdengler: i think the clarification makes sense - it's ambiguous
without it
... we should update the tests but we don't know if we'll be able to
fix it on our side
heycam: do you agree with the proposed fix but don't have time to
fix?
pdengler: yes
heycam: will you be able to fix in the future?
pdengler: we'd want to get to it, yes
heycam: think it's an edge case
ed: yeah, it won't be noticeable to most people and it's possible to
work around
pdengler: true
<scribe> ACTION: heycam to add the wording and fix the test for
ISSUE-2384 [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2920 - Add the wording and fix the test
for ISSUE-2384 [on Cameron McCormack - due 2010-12-16].
ISSUE-2391?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2391 -- Last Call Comment: better changes appendix
-- raised
<trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2391
[27] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2391
chrisl: going through all the logs to find all the changes since
last publication is taking time
heycam: is this something you're part way through?
chrisl: not started yet, don't know if anyone has updated the
appendix and should be able to start again
pdengler: when we last looked it hadn't been updated
chrisl: have to go through the CVS change log and read the diff and
summarise the change
... yes, you can pick the starting point
... we got a comment saying the changes appendix needs to be better,
for the patent policy we need the list of changes from the last time
we published
... because any new features added after LC doesn't get covered
... so we need to show no new features were added and just
clarifications
... that part is fine but the 'better' appendix is more work
... the current version is less detailed than what was asked for in
the comment
... to turn it into a reference for someone that knows the orginal
edition and want to just know what has changed
... we pushed it back to the commenter
... but they haven't got to it
ed: i dealt with the other two remaining issues
... is there anything else we need to do with the spec that isn't
listed here?
heycam: i remember noticing at one stage that the style for the dom
method summaries was looking good in some browsers but not in others
... i want to make sure it looks alright in most browsers - just a
one off quick check at the end when we're ready
ed: just trying to make sure we don't have any surprises, that's all
Test Suite
<ed>
[28]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Full_11#Testsuite_issues
[28] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Full_11#Testsuite_issues
ed: tried to keep track of issues on this wiki page
<ed>
[29]http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/htmlObjectMini
Approved
[29] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/htmlObjectMiniApproved
ed: one thing to note is that i have only kept this one updated and
only contains the tests we have accepted
... the other harnesses include draft tests including some not
reviewed
... this is the official one for the implementation reports
heycam: does this mean we won't have new accepted tests?
ed: i think we have to be open to accept some new ones or possibly
dropping tests back to draft
... don't think it's possible to say until we've done the testing
and see where we are
... it may show issues we've missed - i think this harness and the
tests are in good shape
... and it's useful to run the tests and learn about any issues left
to fix
heycam: i think there are only a couple that need changes
... 99% of the tests are fine regardless of any ambiguities in the
pass criteria
<ChrisL> Updated the disposition of comments -
[30]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/SVG1.1SE-LastCall/dump.html
[30] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/SVG1.1SE-LastCall/dump.html
heycam: so i agree we can do the run through and if there are
substantial changes to the tests we can run those individually
chrisl: there was a discussion of bidi include testing arabic - was
testing two things
... so i made it like the 1.2 test that was simpler
<heycam>
[31]http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/imagePatches/text-intr
o-06-t.png
[31] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/imagePatches/text-intro-06-t.png
heycam: because i wasn't sure if the test required a particular font
i couldn't tell if it was a font problem
chrisl: the reference images should be good references with the
right font
ed: regarding bidi and text anchor we made clarifications in 1.2 and
we need to bring this back so the specs are compatible
chrisl: 1.1 1st edition had some well meaning but incorrect text
ed: chrisl, will you do the back porting?
chrisl: i could look at this, do you know where it is?
ed: i sent mail to the list with the change list - it's multiple
changes but should be able to figure it out
<scribe> ACTION: chrisl to bring the 1.2 changes for bidi and text
anchor back to the 1.1 spec [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2921 - Bring the 1.2 changes for bidi and
text anchor back to the 1.1 spec [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-12-16].
heycam: as part of this will you look at the tests?
chrisl: i started this by simplifying the tests, made some new tests
that used a WOFF font (unapproved)
... it's there so eventually we can have better tests without having
to download and install fonts
... -06, -11, and -12
... -06 was the only approved one, the others won't be in the
implementation report - just so we remember
heycam: does -06 require woff?
chrisl: no, it still uses platform font, just simplifies by only
looking for mandatory ligature
pdengler: on textintro-01, i got lost looking at the test on the
site
... is it that the reference images haven't been regenerated?
chrisl: this is -06 we're talking about
... i've checked in a ref image sitting in the image patches
directory but someone is going to have to run the build scripts for
the harness
<ed>
[33]http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/htmlObjectMini
Approved/text-intro-01-t.html
[33] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/htmlObjectMiniApproved/text-intro-01-t.html
heycam: comparing -01 and -04, not sure why there is combining in
one and not the other
<scribe> ACTION: chrisl to fix the text-intro-04 test with feedback
that has been around a little while [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2922 - Fix the text-intro-04 test with
feedback that has been around a little while [on Chris Lilley - due
2010-12-16].
<ChrisL> ARJ> In the Yiddish example, U+05D0 HEBREW LETTER ALEF is
followed by U+05B8
<ChrisL> ARJ> HEBREW POINT QAMATS. The qamats is a non-spacing mark
and should be
<ChrisL> ARJ> positioned below the alef, yet in the reference image,
it is positioned on
<ChrisL> ARJ> the left side.
heycam: it takes a long time to run through the tests - it's hard to
see sometimes if there is a pass
chrisl: yes, sometimes you have to reload several times, which might
have been a mistake
<ChrisL> the ones with multiple animations would be better split
into separate tests, if you have to hit reload anyway
<general discussion about lessons learned and test first
methodology>
ed: in order to run the test suite, do we need to generate the xml
files?
... anthony generated the reporting files, maybe i can rerun the
scripts
... the problem is last time it included some draft status tests and
i'm not sure if they have been updated
... i can look tomorrow - probably not that hard to regenerate the
status file
... makes sense to see which revision we test so we know if we have
to go back
heycam: do we have a general rule if the revision number doesn't
matter that's okay
ed: yes, the revision numbers are not part of the tests
<scribe> ACTION: ed to regenerate the test status file and make sure
it only contains accepted tests [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2923 - Regenerate the test status file and
make sure it only contains accepted tests [on Erik Dahlström - due
2010-12-16].
ed: i will send mail to the list once the status file is done
heycam: with animate-element-77, i was asking about whitespace
causing things to be in the wrong, firefox is wrong but the test
isn't trying to test whitespace
ed: if we can leave the test as is for now that is better, i would
like to have more tests in future for whitespace
heycam: okay
... the other ones i added are just tweaking the pass criteria to
make it clearer
ed: when i went through the suite i saw about 20 tests that still
had red in - better than we were
... think it's fine to start running through the suite, if there are
any issues left we may need to make some more changes
<ChrisL>
[36]http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/text-dom-01-f.svg
[36] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/text-dom-01-f.svg
chrisl: seems to be using Arial - not sure if the script is
expecting the metrics of Arial
ed: tried to avoid using Arial where possible but there are some
cases where it is needed
... this is a draft test
chrisl: i could respond and say it was a draft, but it was raised as
a comment
... okay, it's a draft, i'll leave that one
heycam: just want to ask about the woff conversion again
chrisl: i've done some more and checked them in, still some to do,
some of the tests i changed the font because it was easier than
converting the svg font
... still have three left to do, the rest are done now
heycam: only a few tests that rely on fonts that haven't been
converted
... so patrick, when you run through if there are only a few it
should be okay to go back to those
pdengler: yes
... we're still on track for giving results next week
chrisl: what implementation are you running - is it public or
internal?
pdengler: it will be internal so we need to figure out how to get it
to you
chrisl: need to get a version to me under member/team
confidentiality for spot checking
pdengler: yes, we'll need to do this - just may take time
... for clarify, my test team monitors the working group mailing
list so as soon as it is sent out that it is ready to go we'll start
heycam: so you'll run all the tests, create the implementation
report, and then coordinate with chris?
pdengler: we'll run it as soon as we can and after that we'll get a
build to chris
heycam: today after i've done the little issues, i'll mail out and
say the tests are ready to run
pdengler: suspect we'll hit some problems and a few will need to be
re-run anyway
ed: only thing missing is the xml file which is on me to figure out,
will get it tomorrow morning
heycam: don't need it to start testing
ed: no, but good to get it done for later
heycam: sounds good
shepazu: another issue from whatwg that i'd like to briefly discuss
<shepazu>
[37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/019
2.html
[37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0192.html
SVG elements in HTML <head>
shepazu: basically someone was doing svg and when tried to validate
it then when put svg in body he could reference with use elements in
other parts of html
... but if he put the svg inside the html it used up space and in
the head it wouldn't validate
pdengler: why did it take up space?
heycam: because it's default CSS
chrisl: display:none should support this?
shepazu: could also say width height zero
chrisl: that might affect the viewport
shepazu: this is maybe stuff for the integration spec - i think
we're going to have people that expect to be able to put things in
the head that doesn't display unless you use it elsewhere
chrisl: we should push this back to the html wg and say it always
has display:none when it goes in the head
ed: don't want to do subsetting
shepazu: no, we don't want to subset, any svg element should be
allowed in the head
... should just be svg allowed in the head as chris said
pdengler: feels like we're creating work here
shepazu: no, i think this should fall out of the model - there is a
quirk of the html spec that doesn't allow svg in the head
heycam: it's consistent with that you can't have things like
paragraph in the head
chrisl: but html doesn't have the same reference model
pdengler: i think we should figure out a better model before we go
an push on this - we should think about the bigger picture before
making requests
shepazu: i disagree, i think you should be able to put it anywhere
in the doc and use it anywhere
ed: and it works but just doesn't validate
shepazu: think it's not an architectural argument
pdengler: i think it goes to the fact there are concepts in svg that
may make sense in html
shepazu: i think it's orthogonal to that - we can have a
conversation about broader issues
... maybe html will eventually have a use element for re-use but
that is orthogonal for whether svg is allowed in the head
pdengler: if you introduce this into html then wouldn't you have to
make bigger changes to html and what can go in the head?
shepazu: i'd like to e-mail the html working group
ed: sounds like we don't have consensus yet but we could start the
conversation
<discussion about whether html might have a use-like thing>
chrisl: html might add something but we already have one in svg
... so we should deal with the svg issue now
shepazu: i think this will be a common pattern - lots of people
think this way
ed: just because something doesn't validate doesn't mean it isn't
used
shepazu: i don't think the validation failure makes sense
... if in the future people decide to add something like this in
html and the consequences in the head then that's a bigger issue
heycam: i hear patrick saying that we should be taking the wider
issues into account so we don't make it harder in future
shepazu: i understand but i think they're orthogonal
heycam: so that's the disagreement
pdengler: how about we test the waters and see what they think?
shepazu: i'm fine with approaching the html wg and saying we see two
ways to solve this, here's one and some people prefer the other
... the larger issue i'm concerned with is that every decision that
we second guess, every little thing that we think have we thought
this through then it costs us
... if this is going to cost an entire telcon then it's not worth it
... i am concerned with how long it takes to get to consensus on
small details
... 1) are there going to be knock on effects for html in the future
(if html introduces a reference mechanism like use)
... 2) are there perf issues with this
ed: the html wg could come back saying we think this has bad effects
... there needs to be a discussion on this
shepazu: we can ask the html wg if these two things will be a
problem
ed: do we need a decision here today - can we assign the action to
start the discussion
<scribe> ACTION: shepazu to send mail to HTML WG raising the issue
of using SVG in the HTML head [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2924 - Send mail to HTML WG raising the
issue of using SVG in the HTML head [on Doug Schepers - due
2010-12-16].
ed: let's try to get the final things fixed in the test suite
tomorrow and run the tests next week
<ed> who's mailing out the minutes today? adrianba?
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: chrisl to bring the 1.2 changes for bidi and text
anchor back to the 1.1 spec [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: chrisl to fix the text-intro-04 test with feedback
that has been around a little while [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: ed to regenerate the test status file and make sure it
only contains accepted tests [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: ed to review the test for ISSUE-2335 [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: heycam to add the wording and fix the test for
ISSUE-2384 [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: shepazu to send mail to HTML WG raising the issue of
using SVG in the HTML head [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-svg-minutes.html#action06]
[End of minutes]
--
Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain
W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2010 23:33:38 UTC