<scribe> scribe: anthony
<ChrisL> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Errata_in_SVG_1.1_Second_Edition
CM: Thought it might be a good idea to go through some
... move some to Core 2
CL: Most are done except for 4 items
DS: Would be good to get do the clip path one
CL: I think that one is covered by another one
CL: I think we can mark it as not needed
... because it's covered by another one
CM: It would be good to discuss those other two ones
ED: Looks fine
DS: It's about JW not wanting to make something more confusing
... we agreed to discuss it when JW had time to look at it
... if we go forward with the other boundingBox ones it kind of clarifies it
... I think we should probably wait with that as well
CM: There is one left on JW's list
... and that can be left as well
... I haven't made much progress in writing of tests for the ones I've folded in
... don't really need to discuss them at the moment
<heycam> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/products/1
CM: I'd like to take a look at the open actions in Tracker
... on 1.1
... There are certainly some that sound like they might have been done already
... should we go through and mark these off one by one?
CL: So you said some of these have been done already?
CM: I think some of the actions are done
... but the action in tracker has been left open
DS: Chris as I recall the reason you said we went to two
... was we were talking about Full and Tiny
CL: Yes that was originally the reason
... I think two telcons in general is good
... but if one of them is going to be about has everyone done there actions
... then time is better spent doing the actions
CM: I do like the idea of having the time of doing the actions
... if we just said no telcon at this time
... people can allocate the time for work
... I would be happy with turning the Monday telcon to time for Actions
ED: I think it's easier for me
... to come up with action items
... and things to discuss
... if there is only one telcon later on in the week
<ed> ED: I'd prefer having the telcon on wednesdays, and the monday for doing actions (or another day in the week)
CM: So baring changing the telcon time all together
... would it be ok to have the time for actions
DS: We could do it like we do our marathons just a smaller version
ED: We could see if the time is not enough to discuss things we could go back to two telcons?
CL: Sounds fine with me
DS: So next week we'll just have a Wed telcon?
CL: I suggest we do this for July
... and re-evaluate in August
DS: This ties in with summer plans for people
ED: I will be gone for half of July
... so may be we should extend the trial period
AG: I'll be gone for a week in July
... might still dial in
CM: No plans
JW: Away two weeks time
... week of the 13th
DS: So I guess we can say July and August we do one telcon a week
... and see how it goes
CM: having defined time is good because it gives us allocated time to work on SVG
... outside our other work
RESOLUTION: We will only meet for one telcon a week during July and August
CL: No objection to that
... as long as it also keeps going to the same place
DS: With the minutes we planned on sending them to www-svg and bcc public
... by contrast with the Agenda
... it would be bcc-ed www-svg and sent to the working group list
CL: I don't mind that
CM: I think sending the agend to www-svg is probably less useful than the minutes
... but it shows that their topics will be discussed
DS: That was one of my ideas to sending them to the list
... them = agenda
RESOLUTION: We will send to the agenda public list and bcc the www-svg list
<heycam> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/products/1
ACTION-2021?
<trackbot> ACTION-2021 -- Erik Dahlström to add informative implementation tip regarding filter primitive subregion and research the second question in Robert's email and respond to that as well -- due 2008-05-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2021
CM: Erik's action
ED: I'm wondering if this is for Filters 1.2
... and not for the errata anyway
CM: Sounds like this might be for later
ED: I raised an issue about primitive sub regions
<ed> related to ISSUE-2284
ISSUE-2284?
<trackbot> ISSUE-2284 -- Clarify how the primitive subregion affects the filter input and outputs for all filter primitives -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2284
ACTION-2067?
<trackbot> ACTION-2067 -- Anthony Grasso to add Eriks proposed wording to the Errata. Link to ACTION-2066 -- due 2008-06-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2067
AG: Haven't really checked back if wording for filters has been updated
ED: This could probably go into 1.2
... not super urgent
<ed> this is ISSUE-2188
CM: I'll reassign it to SVG
... unless there is any objection
ED: Issue is raised on the filters module
CM: AGs action is to port the wording
... just reassigned that
ACTION-2077?
<trackbot> ACTION-2077 -- Erik Dahlström to test implementations for percentage values in clipPath, etc. -- due 2008-07-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2077
ED: This one is more of an exploritory one
... to see what implementations are doing for clipPaths
... would be nice to do it for core 2
CM: Ok, I'll reassign that
ACTION-2134?
<trackbot> ACTION-2134 -- Doug Schepers to find someone who knows about xsd to review and make the changes in gavin's e-mail -- due 2008-08-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2134
DS: Not completed this action
... have started it
... couldn't find anyone who had time to help us do XSD
CL: Long standing problem
CM: so we published XSD for 1.1?
<heycam> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Mar/0085.html
CL: I don't think we did
... This is a schema as far as I can tell
... Oxygen made up
... they were at one point providing it with Oxygen
... I think it was made from a DTD
CM: So it's
... not really our issue
CL: No
DS: But it says that "no of the XSDs supplied by W3C..."
CM: Just found an XSD in the 1.0 spec
... I found it in the old repository
CL: We may have intended to work on it one point
... but it didn't get published with the spec
CM: Maybe we didn't have in the final draft of the spec
DS: I should do something about it
CM: Maybe it's a good idea email Gavin and say we don't provide one
CL: I think a good response might be to say we look more at RNG rather than XSD
... I think he's taken it from Oxygen and we didn't make it
DS: If he supplied it why didn't I do it at the time?
CL: Snowed under?
CM: Anyway, lets reassign this action so it's not part of 1.1
<ChrisL> http://www.oxygenxml.com/forum/topic2481.html
CL: I found a forum posting about this
... not sure if it's relevant
<ChrisL> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020108/SVG.xsd
CL: link to our site with an XSD
... Produced by XMLspy
... is this linked in a spec?
CM: Looks like it was dropped
<ChrisL> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020108/#schema
DS: I'll try to talk to Gavin
... if supplied it maybe we should supply an XSD
CL: That document that we had in 2002 is not necessarily up to date
DS: What value is there in us supplying an XSD
CL: I would rather that we have a relaxNG and generate an XSD from that
DS: This relates to a later action
... I got
<ChrisL> was in a wd, was not developed fiurther. its not in the final rec
DS: which was to ask Robin Berjon about generating a RelaxNG
<ChrisL> better to develop an xsd from the rng (once we make one)
CM: I'll reassign that action of your DS to be on 1.1
ACTION-2163?
<trackbot> ACTION-2163 -- Erik Dahlström to add 1.1 errata for stroke-dasharray to align 1.1 with SVGT1.2 (to allow whitespace-separated values) -- due 2008-08-30 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2163
ED: I held off on this one
... because you had an action to deal with the syntaxes
CM: Maybe should assign this one to me then
ED: Would like to have this in the errata
... would be nice, because it's something I always run into trying to get things running in all the browsers
CM: Ok, I'll keep this one open
ACTION-2203?
<trackbot> ACTION-2203 -- Doug Schepers to add to the 1.1 Full errata that the initial value for the root overflow property is scroll rather than hidden -- due 2008-09-30 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2203
CM: Seems like it's about overflow initial values on the SVG element
DS: We definitely need to put that in
RESOLUTION: ACTION-2203 will go into 1.1 Full 2nd edition
ACTION-2358?
<trackbot> ACTION-2358 -- Doug Schepers to propose wording for the clip path pointer-events erratum and masking/compositing module change -- due 2008-12-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2358
CM: This one sounds like it's probably been done
DS: I think so
... this should be maybe pending review
ACTION-2367?
<trackbot> ACTION-2367 -- Erik Dahlström to propose an errata item for rx and ry -- due 2008-12-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2367
ED: I did send the proposal and we haven't agreed on what should be final text
... I'm fine to changing the implementation to something we can all agree on
... I think there are 3 or so proposals
... The one I made, the Mozilla one, and the third is CSS3
... and align to that
JW: I thought 2 and 3 were quite similar
ED: I could try and look at that
... which is what's left to do
... for that one
... does it need to be done for the errata or can it leave for core 2?
JW: It's an edge case
... so can probably leave it
CM: We can probably leave it for core 2
ED: I started make test cases for it
... not sure if I committed those
... I'll move this to Core 2
ACTION-2372?
<trackbot> ACTION-2372 -- Doug Schepers to propose revised wording for the errata item "Capturing pointer-events with a zero opacity mask" to clarify it with clip-path -- due 2008-12-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2372
CM: Do you want me to close this one?
... or mark it pending review?
DS: Mark it pending review
CM: They are separate issues but the solution was the same place in the spec
ACTION-2386?
<trackbot> ACTION-2386 -- Jonathan Watt to investigate the "SVGZoomEvent - Interface" errata item further -- due 2008-12-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2386
JW: I finished this one already
CM: What was the result of the investigation?
... what happened to the errata on it?
JW: May have not written it
CM: Is it something you think is important enough to do for 2nd edition?
JW: Well, no body seems to implement it other than Mozilla
ED: We send it
JW: I mean providing an interface
... I'm just wondering if nobody provides anything for the interface
<heycam> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Errata_in_SVG_1.1_Second_Edition
JW: there is no rush to get it done
... it's easy to do
... just involves removing stuff
CM: Can wait for you to do that
... once you're done with your work
CL: yeah, probably easier to remove it
ACTION-2402?
<trackbot> ACTION-2402 -- Erik Dahlström to go through the 1.2 Tiny test suite to check if there are any tests for zero length paths that test for directionality and add those to the 1.1 Full test suite -- due 2009-01-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2402
CM: Sounds more like a test suite action
... than something on the spec
ED: I wonder if this is a generic one
... I don't know if it's totally necessary to do it for 1.1 2nd edition
... the tests for Tiny should mostly work in a 1.1 viewer
CM: Should we put this one off then?
ED: I wonder if we even need this one though
CM: In general we want to add more coverage to the test suite
... but I don't know if there was a reason for adding these tests
ED: We were thinking of back porting wording from 1.1 Tiny
... going through that there was nothing to back port
CM: So we don't need to do anything special?
ED: Right
CM: Sounds like we should just close it and when we get to tightening up the wording in SVG 2
... we'll make the tests
ED: I'll close the action
ACTION-2403?
<trackbot> ACTION-2403 -- Jonathan Watt to take a look at the discussions in the errata item http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#bzwidth before the SYD F2F -- due 2009-01-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2403
<heycam> action-2469?
<trackbot> ACTION-2469 -- Jonathan Watt to flesh out the intrinsic sizing erratum with text backported from 1.2T -- due 2009-02-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2469
CM: Related to ACTION-2469
... ACTION-2403 can be closed
ACTION-2404?
<trackbot> ACTION-2404 -- Doug Schepers to add errata item for root overflow -- due 2009-01-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2404
ED: Didn't we discuss this previously?
DS: Ok, I'll just close this one
ACTION-2415?
<trackbot> ACTION-2415 -- Chris Lilley to check the Tiny 1.2 Chapter to see if there is any text in there that can be used for ISSUE-2001 -- due 2009-02-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2415
<ChrisL> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/fonts.html#FontFaceElement
CL: Looked into it
... seems like there is some wording
<ChrisL> 17.8.2 The 'font-face' element
CL: it's a bit round-about
<ChrisL> When used to describe the characteristics of an SVG font contained within the same document, it is recommended that the 'font-face' element be a child of the 'font' element it is describing so that the 'font' element can be self-contained and fully-described. In this case, any 'font-face-src' elements within the 'font-face' element are ignored as it is assumed that the 'font-face' element is describing the characteristics of its parent 'font' element.
CL: says that here's a case where it should be inside
... if we were putting that wording in, I'd like to add a sentence in
... that says
<ChrisL> prefer to add a second sentence to say explicitly that otherwise, it need not be a child of font
<heycam> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/fonts.html#FontFaceElement
CM: Looks like that the text in 1.1 is pretty similar
CL: Do you think the second sentence would help?
CM: I think it would
... in the test suite they're all children of font-face
CL: I thought we had samples where it wasn't
ED: I think we have both
CL: There's an example in 1.2 Tiny that doesn't have it explicitly in a font
... if we've agreed to that I'll stick that wording in
CM: So you'll just re-use that action?
CL: yes
ACTION-2461?
<trackbot> ACTION-2461 -- Jonathan Watt to suggest some rewritten text for these suspend methods -- due 2009-02-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2461
CM: JW you were champion this one in SYD, do you want in 2nd edition?
JW: Yes, would want it in there
... I'll try to get to this after the telcon
ACTION-2472?
<trackbot> ACTION-2472 -- Doug Schepers to fill in the currentTranslate/currentScale erratum to explicitly make using those attributes on inner <svg> elements undefined -- due 2009-02-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2472
CM: Is this something we want to be in?
DS: I think I did this
... I'll research and see if I did this
... I think I did
CM: Wrong link
... I can't see it in that file
<heycam> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.html#svgzoomevent-previous-new
ED: Yeah, it's not in the published version of 2nd edition
CM: Wrong link again
<heycam> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.html#currenttranslate-currentscale-nested-svg
CM: There it is
<ed> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/struct.html#__svg__SVGSVGElement__currentScale
CM: I can keep it open
DS: Yeah, I think this should go in there
ACTION-2477?
<trackbot> ACTION-2477 -- Doug Schepers to propose a solution for ISSUE-2071, referring to external resources and how that affects security (\"tainting\" an svg) and how that might apply to methods like elementFromPoint -- due 2009-02-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2477
DS: This is the one from ROC
... I think JW should take this
CM: I remember we have long discussions in SYD about this
... I don't think this is as critical to get done
... only because we don't really deal with origins in the spec at the moment
CL: It's better to have not anything in there
... than have something that needs to be changed
DS: I remember we said we would put something saying there is a security risk
... and we'd look at fixing the risk in SVG 2
ACTION-2489?
<trackbot> ACTION-2489 -- Doug Schepers to look into allowing RDF in the SVG DTD -- due 2009-03-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2489
CL: Not possible
... can't have a DTD which covers all of the RDF
... you can't do this
... you'd need every possible name space
... just can't do it
DS: Could it be solved in the context of RelaxNG
CL: In NVDL you can do it
DS: I'm going to add that
CL: I'm not sure about using RelaxNG for this either
DS: Could RelaxNG or NVDL look at DTD?
CL: no
... you can, but not for this case
... it's not going to help in this case
CM: DS will you assign this to a different product?
DS: I'm going to leave it open
... we could reach some conclusion on this
... when I talk to Robin Berjon
ACTION-2507?
<trackbot> ACTION-2507 -- Doug Schepers to contact robin berjon to ask for help with converting the 1.1 DTD to RNG and related issues -- due 2009-04-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2507
CM: Already in the process of doing this DS?
DS: I have contacted him about it
... and I just did again
... put it to pending review
... The action of contacting him, I've done that
... That's not really what needs to be done
CM: I think that means we can close the next two then
CL: I wanted to talk about the second one
... there was a second edition published of XHTML 1.1
... they got knocked back on DTD
... I think it would be risky to do that
... For people that need an RNG it doesn't hurt for it to be in separate spec
CM: There were a few reasons for having an RNG for 1.1
... were thinking of building a spec on it
... but this late it might be a bit of work
DS: I don't particularly mind doing that where we publish it as a note
CL: It's very easy to say it's not an errata
DS: I do want to do it
CM: Probably the RNG would make it easier to do some checking
CL: The RNG wouldn't be used to introduce new things
DS: I do understand where you're coming from
... I don't want us to be accused of changing the SVG spec with another spec
... the work is going to be done either way
CL: There is also some stuff on correctness of NVDL that we need to follow up on
CM: I'm happy with what CL proposes
... so ACTION-2508 can be closed
... ACTION-2516 can be left open
CL: Perhaps put it on a separate product
ACTION-2543?
<trackbot> ACTION-2543 -- Cameron McCormack to fix and align the font elements regarding font-face-src and definition-src in SVG 1.1F and SVG 1.2T -- due 2009-05-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2543
CM: One of mine
... haven't done
... I mailed the list at one point
... talking about the differences in content models
between Tiny 1.2 and Full 1.1
scribe: this action may have already been done
... happy to keep that one open for now
ACTION-2547?
<trackbot> ACTION-2547 -- Cameron McCormack to re-render the equations in the implnote appendix -- due 2009-05-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2547
CM: This was to make the equations in the appendix better looking
... lower priority than other ones
... so I'll leave it until last
... if there is time for it I'll do it