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

Minutes, 26 October 2010 SVGWG telcon

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:42:35 +1300
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20101026204235.GA6526@wok.mcc.id.au>
There were insufficient attendees for a full-blown telcon today, but we
briefly discussed moving to one telcon per week, TPAC agenda, and
generation of the implementation report query file.  Diminutive minutes



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

                               - DRAFT -

                   SVG Working Group Teleconference

26 Oct 2010

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/10/26-svg-irc


          ed, [IPcaller], heycam, anthony, adrianba, Shepazu




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Telcons
         2. [5]Implementation query
     * [6]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 26 October 2010


      [7] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/status/full_implementation_query.xml


      [8] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/status/full_implementation_query.xml


      [9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/status/full_implementation_query.xml


     [10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/status/full_implementation_query.xml.diff?r1=1.3&r2=1.4&f=h

   <ed> [11]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Tpac2010_Agenda

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

   <scribe> Scribe: Cameron

   <scribe> ScribeNick: heycam


   CM: should we go back to one telcon per week?

   Others: sounds like a good idea to try [paraphrasing]

   So Erik and I will resume alternating chairing.

Implementation query

   ED: it was out of date until a moment ago


     [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/status/full_implementation_query.xml

   AG: it obviously didn't get the right file

   ED: and it still lists some of the revision numbers as unknown and
   that needs to be fixed

   <scribe> ACTION: Anthony to fix the revision numbers in the
   implementation query file [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2886 - Fix the revision numbers in the
   implementation query file [on Anthony Grasso - due 2010-11-02].

   ED: one of the problems might be the svgz file
   ... the other thing with the test suite was that i also committed a
   new harness that only lists the accepted tests


     [14] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/htmlObjectMiniApproved/

   AG: we can start using the harness for the implementation report

   ED: right, make it easier to go through them and fill out the xml

   CM: when should we start filling out the implementation report?

   ED: we can do it for all of the entries in that file at the moment
   ... the unknown revisions be fixed easily
   ... it'd be nice if those were up to date fairly quickly

   CM: adrian do you know what patrick wanted to talk about wrt the
   test suite?

   AB: no
   ... it might be to do with whether the categorisation of the tests
   are sensible, given that some of the tests include a bunch of
   different aspects of svg
   ... and maybe failing one of the tests because of one of those
   things, that might not be one of the primary things the test is
   testing for, going by the name

   DS: it comes back down to the idea of having more modular tests, so
   that when it looks like -- when you do implementation reports,
   having it clear that implementations are more or less mature based
   on the modules, rather than on the number of tests passed

   AB: i think so, i don't want to speak too much for patrick, i think
   that was the gist of it
   ... it might not necessarily be modularising the tests more, just
   the way that they're organised, so taht when you have the
   implementation report it's clear wheteher you have good interop
   ... that might be masked
   ... customers want to be able to look at the implementation report,
   figure out the level of maturity of the things they can rely on

   CM: we haven't had guidelines for testing strategies, so we can
   discuss whether we want tests to really focus on single features

   ED: sounds like a good tpac topic

   AB: not asking for a load of new work, possibly more as we start to
   think about the future, so having this as a tpac topic sounds like a
   good idea

   DS: the test suite is testing the spec, not the implementations,
   it's a subtle point. that's the original purpose.
   ... that's something we can reexamine w3c wide, to see if that's the
   best for the community

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Anthony to fix the revision numbers in the
   implementation query file [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 20:43:26 UTC

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