- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:40:55 +0200
- To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
WebCGM meeting minutes for first day august 23rd are available at
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.html
___________________________________________________________________________
- DRAFT -
WebCGM WG Teleconference
23 Aug 2006
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/Group/2006/f2f-Cologne/Overview.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-irc
Attendees
Present
Regrets
Chair
Lofton
Scribe
Dave
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Welcome, Logistics, Week's events, Review agenda
2. [6]Review Goals
3. [7]Last Call processing
4. [8]Begin CR discusions
5. [9]Initial telecon with implementors
6. [10]CR exit criteria review
7. [11](continue) CR process discussions
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 23 August 2006
<Chris> Meeting: WebCGM WG f2f, Cologne
<lofton> Scribe: Dave
<lofton> Scribenick: dc
<lofton> Scribes chosen for Session 1-6: Dave, Don, Benoit, Thierry,
Chris, Stuart
Welcome, Logistics, Week's events, Review agenda
Review Goals
<Chris> The goals sound good to me
<Chris> LC= Last Call. CR = Candidate Recommendation
finalize LC processing
schedule CR spec production
finalize agreement on CR exit criteria
look at implementations and test suites
plan & agree CR/PR schedules
(start) prepare CR transition materials
Webnesday afternoon we will have a telecon with the inplementers not
present
Last Call processing
<Chris> I reminded WAIPF about an outstanding review
<Chris>
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Aug/004
8.html
[13]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Aug/0048.html
<thierry> Disposition of comments for WebCGM 2.0 Last Call
<thierry>
[14]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/03/WebCGM2-LastCallResponses.html
[14] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/03/WebCGM2-LastCallResponses.html
All last call comments received to date have been resolved
May still get comments from WAIPF
but as we move to CR processing we have a choice of how we deal with
them
two loose ends from internal discussions
1. namespace defintion
2. Benoit's rewording of highlight description
namespace URI comment url
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Aug/003
8.html
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Aug/0038.html
System identfiercurrently in WebCGM 2.0
[16]http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/webcgm20.dtd
[16] http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/webcgm20.dtd
We seem to be ok to keep the URI the same
We seem to be ok to keep the Public and System identifier the same
The dereference document should reflect the doublicity of the
specification with both W3C and OASIS
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to communicate with directory with namespace
uri and identifiers [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Communicate with Director with
namespace uri and identifiers [on Chris Lilley - due 2006-08-30].
<lofton> current NS URI: [18]http://www.cgmopen.org/schema/webcgm/
[18] http://www.cgmopen.org/schema/webcgm/
Resolution: adopt WebCGM namespace for all versions of
Namespace URI discussion complete
Highlight method clarification original post
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Aug/000
1.html
[19]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Aug/0001.html
Benoit's proposal
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Aug/004
4.html
[20]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Aug/0044.html
BB - focus on object behavior to resolve this question
BB - if you highlight an object, does the highlight propagate to
children objects?
WebCGM 2.0 reference:
[21]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-IC.html#
webcgm_3_1_2_4
[21]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-webcgm20-20060623/WebCGM20-IC.html#webcgm_3_1_2_4
<Chris> void highlight(in WebCGMNodeList nodes,
<Chris> in boolean state);
<Chris> void highlight(in WebCGMNodeList nodes)
<Chris> void clearHilight()
<Chris> replace the first one (from the spec) with the two methods.
one to add hilighting and one to clear it all
<Chris> perhaps change the method name to addHilight
<Chris> This makes the DOMmatch the object behaviors
Currently the DOM doesn't match the description of the object
behaviors
Agreed that when an object is highlighted, all of it's children
highlight
Resolution: Acept Chris' proposal
<scribe> ACTION: Editor to revise the document and the IDL [recorded
in [22]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Editor
<scribe> ACTION: Lofton to revise the document and the IDL [recorded
in [23]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Revise the document and the IDL [on
Lofton Henderson - due 2006-08-30].
<scribe> ACTION: Stuart to update the highlight test in the TS to
reflect this decision [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Update the highlight test in the TS
to reflect this decision [on Stuart Galt - due 2006-08-30].
<lofton> (....morning break....)
highlight behavior discussion complete
Begin CR discusions
item left over from first previous topic
Should we process an erratum to deal with changes to URI/IRI for
WebCGM 1.0?
Chris - this is probably a good idea
<Chris> [25]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM-19990121-errata
[25] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM-19990121-errata
<Chris> sorry, thats the fe
<Chris> [26]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM-20011217-errata
[26] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM-20011217-errata
<Chris> [27]http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-WebCGM/
[27] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-WebCGM/
<scribe> ACTION: Lofton to produce produce the 1.0 erratum for
URI/IRI clarification and circulate to Wg [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Produce produce the 1.0 erratum for
URI/IRI clarification and circulate to WG [on Lofton Henderson - due
2006-08-30].
Timeline for CR Draft
thierry - need a minimum date for exiting CR to put into the Status
of This Document (SOTD)
<tmichel> WebCGM 2.0 CR version cover page.
<tmichel>
[29]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/thierry-editor/overview
.html
[29]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/thierry-editor/overview.html
We will need to pass a resolution in the WG if we want to transition
to CR
At that point we will need a conference with the director for
approval to publist the CR
This conference requires a 1 week lead time
Best case - we have a Friday resolution and the document ready to go
at that time
Best case conference with director would be Tuesday September 5
One month duration would be October 5
Before entering CR we would need a draft implementation report
Transition requiements for CR
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transition?docstatus=cr-tr
[30] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transition?docstatus=cr-tr
*dc test
<Chris> From SVG spec:
<Chris> When two line segments meet at a sharp angle and miter joins
have been specified for 'stroke-linejoin' , it is possible for the
miter to extend far beyond the thickness of the line stroking the
path. The 'stroke-miterlimit' imposes a limit on the ratio of the
miter length to the 'stroke-width' . When the limit is exceeded, the
join must be converted from a miter to a bevel.
<Chris> <miterlimit>
<Chris> The limit on the ratio of the miter length to the
'stroke-width' . The value of <miterlimit> must be a number greater
than or equal to 1. Any other value shall be treated as unsupported
and processed as if the property had not been specified.
<Chris> The ratio of miter length (distance between the outer tip
and the inner corner of the miter) to 'stroke-width' is directly
related to the angle (theta) between the segments in user space by
the formula:
<Chris> miterLength / stroke-width = 1 / sin ( theta / 2 )
<Chris> For example, a miter limit of 1.414 converts miters to
bevels for theta less than 90 degrees, a limit of 4.0 converts them
for theta less than approximately 29 degrees, and a limit of 10.0
converts them for theta less than approximately 11.5 degrees.
<Chris>
[31]http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/painting.html#StrokeMiterlimitP
roperty
[31]
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/painting.html#StrokeMiterlimitProperty
Initial telecon with implementors
<thierry> Pass all tests exept 6 tests:
<thierry> Interested in 2.0 test suite result, but we are now
interest into 1.0 tes
<Chris> linecap 1 and 2, linejoin
<Chris> miter limit
<Chris> 2 pattern tests
<Chris> sizing of the pattern is not correct
<Chris> everyone seems to pass the values tomicrosoft gdi so they do
not get the correct result
<thierry> 6 probllematic tests:
<thierry> The old 1.0 static founctionalities are the one that could
raise issues. We are OK with the 2.0 tests
<thierry> Lofton: Can you send more info when you have more results
?
<Chris> SVG has some animated miterlimit tests
<Chris> animate-elem-35-t
<Chris>
file://localhost/E:/cygwin/home/Chris/W3C/WWW/Graphics/SVG/Group/rep
ository/testsuite/1.1/htmlObjectHarness/full-animate-elem-35-t.html
<thierry> Probably by tomorrow.
<thierry> Ulrich: Will send the result tomorow:
<thierry> Lofton: For the schedule we are thinking about a 30 day CR
phase beginning sept 5th, ending Oct 5th
<thierry> Lofton: Any adjustement we need to do in this time frame
<thierry> Lofton we are already covered on the 2.0 tests
<thierry> Dave: we have a problem on the following funct -
InterpollatedInterior
<thierry> Ulrich: We do not support this funct yet
<thierry> Dave : It does work in our 1.0 implementation.
<Chris> Larson 2.0 viewer uses OpenGL for rendering
<thierry> Don: But not as good in our 2.0 viewer
<thierry> Ulrich will send an Implementation to Chris and Lofton
tomorrow
<thierry> Ulrich has now left the telecon.
CR exit criteria review
<thierry>
[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Jul/008
4.html
[32]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Jul/0084.html
<thierry> Lofton: we could change the profile, losen for 1.0
functionalities that are issues
<thierry> Chris: We can mention in the CR draft that these funct are
at risk.
<thierry> Don: We are going to stuff we have resolved a long time
ago
<thierry> Don: The DOM is THE objective
<thierry> Don: Each vendor want to have a good static capabilities,
but vendors really want to focus on a DOM
<thierry> Chris: You can say it is required, if it is not correctly
implemented
<thierry> Lofton: We are not going to remove a 1.0 implementation
because we do not have two perfert implementation
<thierry> Chris: it is better to say in the Profile that it is
optional than to have diffrent rendering in different viewers
<thierry> Chris: we could have also some authoring guidelines
<thierry> Benoit: Would be happy with relaxing the profile
<thierry> Don: We could implement the Minorlimit
<thierry> Don: we are 2 implementations; one for static and a new
one handling Dynamic
<thierry> Don: the real interoperability should be the DOM
<thierry> Benoit: If chris says the only way is to change the
profile, I am fine with that
<thierry> Chris: W3C should probably have a sort of QA phase were we
could use much more tests to test implementations
<thierry> Chris: These would not be substantive changes, needing
another Last Call
<thierry> Lofton: to pass the patern tests we should have the size
optional ?
<thierry> Don: The gradient in the Interpolated Interior is the
issue we have
<thierry> Lofton: Need to be clear on which tests we have problems
with
<thierry> Lofton: Either two passes on each tests or downgrade the
feature
<thierry> Lofton: the feature at risk wil be the Interpolated
Interior
<thierry> Benoit: The miter limit we could have that done in our
implementation.
<thierry> Benoit: If we have time we should look at the impact on
the profile
<thierry> Benoit: I was thinking about miter limit, to to say so in
the profile
<thierry> Benoit: there is also an internal issue raised by Ulrich
(Benoit will repport about that)
<thierry> esolution: the candidate feature at risk are the pattern
size aspect of deniable patterns and the performance requirements
for miter limit
<thierry> Resolution: the candidate feature at risk are the pattern
size aspect of deniable patterns and the performance requirements
for miter limit
<thierry> Lofton: the feature Interpolated Interior is covered by
the Larson 1.0 Implementation, so we are OK with this one
<thierry> Benoit: we are pretty good on Unicode
<thierry> Lofton: In the Test suite, there are 7 tests that are
Chinese and Japanese, where two are IRI tests using Unicode
caracters
<thierry> Dieter : Pattern size - It is cearly a bug. We will fix
it.
<thierry> Dieter: miter limit: We think we pass this test.
<thierry> Chris: It depends if you are implementing a converter or a
viewer
<thierry> Dieter: It is only a screen issue but it is correctly
printed on a PS printer
<thierry> Dieter: actually a screen performance issue.
<thierry> Dieter is fine with the DOM change about highlight
resolution discussed this morning
<thierry> Benoit: we would be inrested in a flash object method
<thierry> Lofton: that would be for 2.1 ...
<thierry> Lofton: we have preliminary features for 2.1 and 3.0
<thierry> Dieter: I would like to make sure this can be added latter
on
<thierry> Lofton: At this point I would like to have the minimum
changes, this is the case for the highlight methodFlashing
<thierry> Don: I would also like to wait before adding it. It may be
tight to other features
<thierry> Dieter: We could replace true/flase with flash On/off in
the clear hightlight method
<thierry> CHris: instead or True/false we could use a numeric value,
allowing to add another value latter on, not a bolean value.
<thierry> Dieter: Yes that is a good suggestion
<thierry> Lofton: Sounds fine with me.
<thierry> Resolution: second parameter is called behavior, and the
value is add
(continue) CR process discussions
<thierry> Lofton: will exit CR on 5th October
<thierry> Lofton: This should allow to more to PR by end of October
<thierry> Thierry: yes before Ac meeting in November. it would be
usefull to advertize during the AC meeting wehere all AC Reps are
present
<thierry>
[33]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/thierry-editor/overview
.html
[33]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/thierry-editor/overview.html
<thierry>
[34]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/thierry-editor/overview
.html
[34]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/thierry-editor/overview.html
<thierry> Thierry: The Cover page is ready. It does incorporate the
publication date on sept 05. Ending CR date on oct 5th
<thierry> Thierry : SOTD includes the exit criteria adopted by the
WG and 3 features at risk
<thierry> features at risk are : Pattern size aspect of definable
patterns, Performance requirements for Miter limit., Text on a path
<thierry> The cover page also fulfills the pubrules
<thierry> Thierry: Lofton needs to copy and paste it into the CR
draft
<thierry> meeting ajourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Chris to communicate with directory with namespace uri
and identifiers [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Editor to revise the document and the IDL [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Lofton to produce produce the 1.0 erratum for URI/IRI
clarification and circulate to Wg [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Lofton to revise the document and the IDL [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Stuart to update the highlight test in the TS to
reflect this decision [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.html#action04]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [40]scribe.perl version 1.127
([41]CVS log)
$Date: 2006/08/23 15:36:59 $
_________________________________________________________
[40] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[41] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127 of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03
Check for newer version at [42]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002
/scribe/
[42] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Succeeded: s/directory/Director/
Succeeded: s/2//
Succeeded: s/compete/complete/
Succeeded: s/Wg/WG/
Succeeded: s/data/date/
Succeeded: s/Oric/Ulrich/g
Succeeded: s/Minor limit/mitor limit/g
Succeeded: s/mitor limit/miter limit/g
Found Scribe: Dave
Found ScribeNick: dc
WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: BB Benoit CHris Dave Dieter Don Lofton Scribenick Stu
art Thierry Ulrich esolution file joined krzysztof left tmichel trackbo
t webcgm
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
<dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
<dbooth> Present+ amy
Agenda: [43]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/Group/2006/f2f-Cologne/Ov
erview.html
Found Date: 23 Aug 2006
Guessing minutes URL: [44]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.h
tml
People with action items: chris editor lofton stuart
[43]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/Group/2006/f2f-Cologne/Overview.html
[44] http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-webcgm-minutes.html
WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
End of [45]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[45] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
--
Thierry Michel
W3C
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 15:41:36 UTC