W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2010

Minutes, SVG WG telcon, 11 Nov 2010

From: Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 22:44:23 +0000
Message-ID: <4CDC71C7.8070901@jwatt.org>
To: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
The minutes of the SVG WG telcon on 11 Nov 2010 can be found at:


or below as text.



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

                               - DRAFT -

                   SVG Working Group Teleconference

11 Nov 2010


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0127.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/11-svg-irc


          [Microsoft], heycam, ed, anthony, jwatt


          anthony, Jonathan Watt


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Telcon Time
         2. [6]Little TPAC Summary
         3. [7]Plan for 1.1 Test Suite
         4. [8]SVG 2
         5. [9]rx/ry clamping on <rect>
         6. [10]gzip MIME-type
         7. [11]Actions and issues in Tracker
     * [12]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 11 November 2010

   <jwatt> I would if I could figure out how to get the number pad to
   come up in the new version of skype

   <jwatt> for anyone else hitting that problem in future, you need to
   hide your sidebar to get the number pad to show up

   <jwatt> crazy

   <anthony> Scribe: anthony

   <scribe> ScribeNick: anthony

Telcon Time

   CM: Ed we did we resolve what was discussed in terms of telcon time?

   ED: What we discussed at TPAC meeting was to have the telcon one
   hour earlier than before
   ... as I understood it that was one hour before the actual time
   ... and not the shifted time
   ... so essentially it means 20:00 UTC

   CM: 2 hours ago was my translated time
   ... but it's actually 1 hour ago

   AG: So 7am for me and 9am for CM

   PD: So 9pm for you ED?

   ED: It's 10pm here now

   PD: Noon for PST
   ... that does not apply to the task force correct?

   ED: As far as I know the task force has not changed the time
   ... I think that is 20:00 UTC
   ... I'll double check
   ... Yes task force 20:00 UTC

   CM: That's the time we want to move to for our teclon time right?
   ... this means that the task force time is at the same time?

   ED: Actually I think, 20:00 UTC is the time we have now in the
   telcon system
   ... for SVG teclons
   ... check that now


     [13] http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar.html#s_2216

   ED: I'm happy with we have now
   ... so we shouldn't change anything
   ... as in starting 1 hour ago

   AG: That's fine with me
   ... PD is that fine with you?

   PD: That's great

   CM: And you also discussed having single telcon a week?

   ED: I think everyone at the meeting was ok with that
   ... and we decided to go with Thursdays

   RESOLUTION: We will have 1 telcon per week at 20:00 UTC on Thursdays

Little TPAC Summary

   CM: I did skim through the minutes
   ... but I just wanted to get some broad ideas on what was decided
   about plans and directions

   ED: What I heard we were aiming for some what stable specs for June
   ... those specs will include public fx Transforms 2D/3D, Filters
   spec (that apply to HTML), join Animation model spec
   ... the SVG Integration spec
   ... and as a lower priority the Advanced Gradients

   CM: At what sort of level by June?

   ED: Not sure we decided on, but I heard somewhat stable
   ... but it suggests and agressive schedule for getting drafts out
   ... I think we can probably have a couple of sepcs ready by then.
   Not sure if they'll all be at the same level

   CM: Might be duable if we all put an effort in

   PD: Two additional items
   ... We were going to put Erik on the SVG DOM
   ... And thinking about simplifying the DOM, having getters and
   setters and simpler list API
   ... only other thing was we identified owners
   ... Transforms is and has been driven by Anthony
   ... Animation was going to be driven by Dean
   ... Filters was going to be driven by Robert
   ... Advanced Gradients sounded like a partnership by Tav and Anthony

   CM: Robert?

   PD: ROC

   ED: I think someone from Apple said that they were happy to be an
   editor of Filters
   ... I'm pretty sure I have an action relating to that
   ... can't remember off hand who it was

   PD: The only other thing we said was that, to do two things around
   ... as we look to make tests, we move to make tests for the new W3C
   testing harness
   ... and we deliver tests and specs as much as we could at the same
   ... and Doug was going to lead investigation into doing crowed
   sourcing for test development

   CM: Obviously we are not going to convert all our existing tests to

   PD: No

   ED: I think it's probably best to go with the current test suite now
   ... but for future test development
   ... we should use the new harness

   CM: Does it enable more automated testing like ref tests?

   ED: Yes, and I think it makes sense to use ref tests where we can
   ... not everything can be script automated
   ... not sure if scripted tests and ref tests will cover everything
   ... but it will cover a big portion

   CM: The drivers for these task force specs are they the editors?

   PD: My understanding was that they are at least the owners, as in
   they are responsible to get it from point A to point B
   ... And both myself and anyone else should contribute to make that

Plan for 1.1 Test Suite

   CM: Was 1.1 2nd Edition discussed at the F2F as well?

   ED: What we discussed at TPAC was to try and finish the last call
   ... and close them before December 15th
   ... and around the same time
   ... we should have a somewhat stable charter document
   ... because it will take a few weeks for the AC review to happen

   CM: That's mostly a task for Doug and Chris

   ED: I know Doug has started work on it
   ... and he showed some work on it

   CM: The plan for having thses last call issues by the 15th Dec
   ... was that we could publish the spec at the next maturity level as

   ED: I think the plan is to ask for publication some time in december
   ... and have it move to recommendation some time in January
   ... if everything goes according to plan
   ... because the plan is to not have the 1.1 2nd Edition in the
   charter document
   ... just new things

   CM: Test suite do you have a status of that?

   ED: I've been doing updates and I've been working on it today
   ... generating reference images
   ... and fixing minor issues
   ... and I sent an email to the list
   ... with the issues
   ... some tests have some unclear or missing pass criteria
   ... some tests have missing revision numbers
   ... due to the way they were checked in
   ... missing 'ko' flag
   ... some tests are using
   ... red to indicate pass
   ... but not to concered about that
   ... So there are lot of animation tests that are missing written
   pass criteria which is bad

   CM: Do we need to give someone an action to look at some of those

   AG: Might have to triage those because there are alot of those

   ED: Seems that there are about 30 or so

   CM: Can you put that on a wiki page


     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0130.html

   ED: Already emailed the list

   AG: If we divide that up between us, could have that done in no time

   CM: Time line for tests suite work?

   ED: I think that it is ok to have it done by december if we all do
   the work
   ... I've run it from start to finish a few times
   ... and everytime I've run through it I've come across issues
   ... this list is not complete with all the issues
   ... so basically it's making sure it's ok for releasing

   CM: Is that something you were going to continue on and do?

   ED: I think so

   CM: So things that need to be done are
   ... addressing pass criteria
   ... and fixing red
   ... and there are some tests which need to be approved by us

   ED: I wasn't too concerned about those
   ... we could put more in
   ... or we can keep going with the ones we have already

   CM: By adding to those?

   ED: The ones that I've been reviewing

   CM: Ideally we'd be able to approve or not the ones you've reviewed
   so far

   ED: If you have a list of those we could go through those quickly

   CM: Don't have the list at the moment

   ED: Can we run the test suite status generation script again?

   AG: Yes, I can run the test suite status again
   ... after the telcon, and email out

   ED: Just make sure to run an update before you generate

   CM: There are still some tests that heven't been reviewed
   ... I don't know at this point
   ... if we want to consider not reviewing those

   ED: The sooner we close on the final list of tests
   ... the easier it will be
   ... we still need to run through the implementation status of each

   AG: Might be worth waiting for the status report

   CM: There are a bunch that I reviewed
   ... of the Microsoft tests
   ... and some of them have questions or arguments and I've marked
   those as reviewed
   ... and there are still some that haven't been responded to

   PD: Is that right?

   CM: I can go back a check back through my email
   ... and if there are ones that have outstanding comments I'll email

   PD: I'll also look
   ... if we've missed anything that would also be great


   CM: People are still bringing up issues that might apply to SVG 1.1.
   ... since we want to get the document out
   ... don't want to make too many drastic changes to it
   ... I want a place to address these issues
   ... that come up
   ... What is the current plan for SVG 2

   ED: I think we touched or discussed topics
   ... but we didn't talk about it alot
   ... we are still on the plan on using the modules for parts of the

   CM: When you were talking before about these core DOM changes
   ... it sounded more like stuff that effects SVG 2
   ... rather than a separate document

   PD: The way I think about it is SVG 2 is going to be modulised like
   we talked about
   ... you're right about the DOM work
   ... we need to figure out where that goes
   ... and the SVG integration module
   ... these two are portion of the SVG 2
   ... might want to look at or add to or improve things
   ... which is part of the SVG 2 track

   CM: In terms of what SVG 2 the document is going to include
   ... is say the integration document going to be part of the SVG 2
   family of specifications
   ... or will that text go into the SVG 2 document itself
   ... I remember talking about a while ago about producing modules
   ... and bringing them together
   ... never been quite sure logistically where the text is going to go

   ED: We do have the SVG 2 base document there in place
   ... it is possible to add stuff to it

   <ed> [15]http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/2.0/

     [15] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/2.0/

   CM: The question is if I'm going to add some text
   ... where do I go to add it

   PD: I think that for example, I think that Anthony wants me to look
   at SVG Compositing and maybe that's a module in itself
   ... should probably make a first pass at what the modules are
   ... so we don't have to revisit it

   CM: We should decide what features are going to be part of SVG 2
   ... in the broad SVG 2 time frame and then from that and see which
   are modules
   ... that are going to be seperate at the moment
   ... and which ones are not
   ... and the features that are not modules
   ... will have to go into the document itself
   ... and we'll have to work out what the structure is like
   ... one thing that bugs me about SVG 1.1 it's wordy in some places
   ... where it doesn't need to be
   ... and not detailed enough
   ... and I wonder how much we want to use from the 1.1

   AG: I remember Doug was saying use SVG 1.1 but mark it up as text
   that is unapproved
   ... then we review it
   ... so that it goes to a reviewed status

   CM: If someone has time it would be good to go through and rewrite
   whole sections

   <jwatt> scribenick: jwatt

   <scribe> scribe: Jonathan Watt

rx/ry clamping on <rect>


     [16] http://www.w3.org/mid/20101101023449.GK28301@wok.mcc.id.au

   ED: I'm happy with the suggested wording and don't mind changing
   ... do we want to put it in 1.1 or not

   CM: I'm happy to put it in 1.1
   ... it's a small clarification

   ED: I think it's better to put it in than not

   PD: if I don't come back to it, assume that I think it's okay
   ... the cost of changing for us is high right now though


     [17] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/shapes-rect-03-t.svg

   ED: if we make the proposed change, that test would need to be
   ... what Firefox is doing right now would then be the correct
   behavior I believe

   PD: I'll comment on the list

gzip MIME-type

   ED: people seemed unhappy with the changed wording
   ... do we want to have it as a supported format for SVG, or is it
   just intended for transfer?
   ... I think people generally set the HTTP header
   ... you tend to end up with .svgz files on your local machine, and
   it's actually useful
   ... I think most editors support it

   CM: I think the preferred way is to have your server set up to send
   the appropriate headers, rather than having a separate MIME-type
   ... I'm not convinced the spec needs to say anything about gzip,
   when it doesn't say anything about other compression formats

   PD: would we potentially change 1.1 for this?

   ED: we won't change it if people really dislike the change

   PD: we aren't going to support opening .svgz from the local file
   system in IE9

   CM: making it a requirement would be a big change at this point

   ED: okay, I'm fine with dropping this for now in that case
   ... I'd like to spec it out in 2.0 though

Actions and issues in Tracker

   CM: I see there are many open actions in Tracker
   ... and we're probably at the point again when lots of it is now
   irrelevant, making Tracker less useful
   ... I think it would help if it got back to the stage when it's an
   accurate reflection of what has to be done, and when
   ... I think we need to add a component to the telcons for this

   PD: does Tracker support cross-group collaboration

   CM: no
   ... the fx task force are using tracker
   ... you can get a view of all the issues assigned to you across all
   Tracker instances, but that's about the limit of the cross-group
   ... "My Tracker"

   PD: one thing that concerns me is that people in the CSS WG hadn't
   heard of the work Antony had done
   ... and in another case a group left at TPAC because they didn't
   know there was a meeting

   CM: I'd imagine you have reps from groups out in other groups
   reporting back
   ... to their group
   ... which is probably the way to solve this
   ... minute emails to the lists have a good summary of the actions
   and resolutions at the top
   ... maybe an email with just that and a link to the full minutes
   should go out to other groups lists

   ED: fantasai does send out summaries via twitter
   ... I think pulling out the resolutions and putting them at the top
   would be an improvement

   PD: we don't use resolutions enough

   ED: we need to make sure we act on them
   ... track them in the wiki?

   CM: I think tracker has some crude tools for resolution tracking
   ... I think we should be clearer about desicions and making sure
   they get turned into resulutions

   JW: I'm concerned we don't remember the details of what we talk
   about and decide, and the details get lost in minutes
   ... we should really have topic pages in the wiki where we summarize
   the important details from telcons
   ... so that we don't have to waste so much time going over the same
   topics because we forgot the details of when we discussed the topic
   last time
   ... or if not a summary, at least topic pages where we add links to
   relevant minutes

   PD: shame our wiki doesn't work very well

   <general agreement>

   ED: I talked to Peter Linss (css wg co-chair) after TPAC who said we
   might be able to share resources

   PD: I'd be willing to look into resources
   ... I'd like a solution that pushes out info, like to my email box
   ... and provides good query tools

   <agreement that PD will look into other solutions that would be
   agreeable to the WG>

   CM: I worry that we may just swap one set of problems for another,
   and take up a lot of time switching
   ... and that changing wouldn't solve the problems

   trackbot: end telcon

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([19]CVS log)
    $Date: 2010/11/11 22:39:22 $

     [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [19] 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 [20]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002

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

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/pint/point/
Succeeded: s/lsit/list/
Succeeded: s/someone/Peter Linss (css wg co-chair)/
Found Scribe: anthony
Inferring ScribeNick: anthony
Found ScribeNick: anthony
Found ScribeNick: jwatt
Found Scribe: Jonathan Watt
Scribes: anthony, Jonathan Watt
ScribeNicks: anthony, jwatt
Default Present: [Microsoft], heycam, ed, anthony, jwatt
Present: [Microsoft] heycam ed anthony jwatt
Agenda: [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDe
Found Date: 11 Nov 2010
Guessing minutes URL: [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/11-svg-minutes.html
People with action items:

     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2010OctDec/0127.html
     [22] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/11-svg-minutes.html

   End of [23]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

     [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 22:44:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:29 UTC