W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2011

Minutes, May 5 2011 SVG WG telcon

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:38:41 +1200
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110505213840.GA1999@wok.mcc.id.au>
Minutes for the telcon are at:


and below as text:


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

                               - DRAFT -

                   SVG Working Group Teleconference

05 May 2011


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2011AprJun/0038.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-svg-irc


          +1.415.832.aaaa, tbah, rik, heycam, Doug_Schepers, anthony

          Chris, Erik




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]F2F venue
         2. [6]Discussion on SVG 2. Based on J Watt's email.
     * [7]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 05 May 2011

   <scribe> Scribe: vhardy

   <shepazu> Scribenick: vhardy

   heycam: First topic: 1.1 publication.

   shepazu: the most important thing is that we resolved to proceed
   with the publication.

   heycam: we should make that resolution now.

   shepazu: I have not seen a formal resolution to proceed. We should
   take one now.

   heycam: do we have a resolution to transition the SVG Full 1.1 2nd
   Edition to proposed recommendation?

   no objections.

   RESOLUTION: The WG will transition SVG Full 1.1 2nd Edition to
   proposed recommendation

   heycam: in terms about last steps we need to take...
   ... spec. editing is all done, except for the issue about whether or
   not filters should apply to mask. Erik wanted to get that in. All
   the previous outstanding have been addressed.
   ... the PR template has been applied to the spec.

   <heycam> [8]http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/

      [8] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/

   heycam: the spec. is fine. The implementation matrix is where we
   have some work left.


      [9] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/status/implementation_matrix.html

   heycam: I ran it through FF and WebKit yesterday. We had discussed
   last week about the remaining tests that do not have 2 passes and
   for which we decided to not use ASV. We had a discussion about
   unapproving these tests.
   ... I had a conversation with shepazu about unapproving the tests
   that do not have two passes. Last week, we did not specifically
   decide. I had an action to discuss it with shepazu to decide if it
   was the best way forward.

   shepazu: I personally believe that it is better to take these tests
   into SVG 2 and not include them into SVG 1.1.

   heycam: given that some aspects of the spec. are not covered to that
   extent, we are not weakening the test suite by unapproving these

   general agreement about unapproving the tests as summarized by Erik.


     [10] http://www.w3.org/mid/op.vuyp2zyvgeuyw5@localhost.localdomain

   heycam: we are down to 4 tests that are going to be unapproved and 1
   that only has one green slots and references ASF for the second
   ... if there is no objection, I'll make the changes to the impl.
   report after the call.

   (no objection).

   heycam: shepazu, should we publish the test suite differently?

   shepazu: there is no formal procedures around test suite. There are
   best practices, but not officiel process to follow to proceed. We
   need to demonstrate that there are interoperable implementations,
   and we use a test suite for that demonstration.

   heycam: we should publish it.

   vhardy: I think it would be good to publish the test suite at the
   same time we go to PR.

   heycam/shepazu: agreed.

   <scribe> ACTION: heycam to publish the test suite and implementation
   report at the same time SVG 1.1 2nd edition goes to PR. [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-3038 - Publish the test suite and
   implementation report at the same time SVG 1.1 2nd edition goes to
   PR. [on Cameron McCormack - due 2011-05-12].

   heycam: Tbah, there is a test shapes-rect-03.svg: can you test
   Inkscape so that I can update the impl report?

   tbah: yes, I can do that.

   <scribe> ACTION: tbah to verify shapes-rect-03, filters-image-04 and
   filters-image-05 against Inkscape. [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-3039 - Verify shapes-rect-03,
   filters-image-04 and filters-image-05 against Inkscape. [on Tavmjong
   Bah - due 2011-05-12].

   heycam: that is all about the impl. report.
   ... the other part is the disposition of comments.

   <heycam> [13]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/SVG1.1SE-LastCall/

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/SVG1.1SE-LastCall/

   heycam: there were only a couple cells to fill in.
   ... there are only 4 comments for which there was no response to our

   vhardy: have we sent repeated requests?

   heycam: yes, and still did not get answers.
   ... In any way, these comments have been accepted and the changes
   ... admin-wise, in terms of spec., that is all.
   ... there are two things on the agenda: animate-elem-92, the other
   is filters applying to masks.
   ... the animation test is for the recent change we made to discrete
   'to' animations. It would be good to include it. It passes two
   ... we should add it to the impl. report.

   vhardy: sounds good.

   (no objection).

   heycam: ok, I will add animate-elem-92 to the test suite and impl.

   <scribe> ACTION: heycam to add animate-elem-92 to the test suite and
   impl. report for SVG 1.1 Full 2nd edition. [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-3040 - Add animate-elem-92 to the test
   suite and impl. report for SVG 1.1 Full 2nd edition. [on Cameron
   McCormack - due 2011-05-12].

   heycam: about the filter issue (applying to masks). We have not
   discussed this on a call. I did respond to Erik.

   <heycam> [15]http://www.w3.org/mid/op.vttgfpltgeuyw5@localhost

     [15] http://www.w3.org/mid/op.vttgfpltgeuyw5@localhost

   heycam: it seems that the spec. says filters should apply to the
   mask element, but no implementation does it.
   ... I would propose that filter does not apply to mask.
   ... like the recent clarification that opacity does not apply to the
   mask element.

   (no objection)

   heycam: it is a small change in the spec., like removing one word or

   RESOLUTION: The group agrees that the filter property does not apply
   to the mask element.

   vhardy: just to clarify, this is just on the <mask> element, you
   could still filter the children of a <mask>, right?

   heycam: yes, that's right.
   ... I wrote a test for this today.


     [16] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/masking-filter-01-f.svg

   heycam: I think we should add this to the test suite since all
   implementations should pass it. The test requires review and
   ... can someone review it during the call? It is a simple test.
   ... also, let's discuss it at the end of the call.

   vhardy: I agree we should add the test to the test suite.

   heycam: ok, that is all the discussions we needed for 1.1. shepazu
   has put in motion the request for the transition.
   ... there is a minimum of 6 weeks before PR and recommendation?

   shepazu: yes, I believe this is the case.

   vhardy: what is the date of the transition call?

   shepazu: the publication will probably happen on the 12th.
   ... the transition call could happen Friday May 6th or Monday 9th or
   Tuesday 10th.

   heycam: the deadline we had was that we wanted the publication
   request to be in before Friday May 6th before the publishing
   ... now that we have a resolution, we are all set up for the
   transition request.

F2F venue

   heycam: last time we discussed this, we were wondering how to
   maximize the FX task force participation. Shepazu was going to talk
   to Patrick and Dean.

   shepazu: I sent emails. Dean said unlikely. Patrick said no, but
   Sylvain could join instead. Sylvain said he could join for the FX
   day, but not the SVG meeting.
   ... it seems we would not have Apple or Microsoft at the meeting.

   heycam: cabanier and vhardy are interested in joining.

   vhardy/cabanier: we are flexible, we could attend at a different

   shepazu: for that date, it is unlikely to get Microsoft, and
   impossible to get Apple.

   vhardy: do we know of a time/location that would work for them?

   shepazu: Redmond is good for Patrick.
   ... Seatle should work to.
   ... I think Microsoft might be willing to host.

   cabanier: Adobe has an office too.
   ... I can look into hosting as well.

   shepazu: it would be good to meet with the CSS working group in
   Japan. But it is unlikely to get Patrick, Chris and Dean.

   heycam: Tab will be in Japan.
   ... and he participates in FX discussions.

   anthony: I will not be in Japan.

   shepazu: who would be in the SVG WG meeting?

   Jun, Rik, Vincent (2 days), Doug, Cameron, Tab (?)

   shepazu: we would not have critical mass really.
   ... and missing critical participants.

   (Dean, Patrick, Chris, Anthony).

   shepazu: I am not sure it is worth it.

   vhardy: could we have a poll to decide on the next F2F.

   <scribe> ACTION: shepazu to set up a poll to have two options: set
   date for the Japan meeting (right after CSS WG F2F) and a meeting in
   Redmond/Seatle with a few dates. [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-3041 - Set up a poll to have two options:
   set date for the Japan meeting (right after CSS WG F2F) and a
   meeting in Redmond/Seatle with a few dates. [on Doug Schepers - due

   heycam: We could also have F2F co-located with the TPAC (November,
   Boston). SVG Open is in Boston late September).

   shepazu: I think TPAC is in California, not Boston.

   <heycam> SVG Open is October 17 to 20, 2011

   <shepazu> TPAC: Santa Clara Marriott, Santa Clara, California,
   (Silicon Valley) USA

   <shepazu> 31 October to 4 November 2011

   heycam: July is still a reasonable date for the group.

   shepazu: late July would work for me.

   vhardy: for me too.

   heycam: so the options are a) Japan early June and b) Seatle late

   shepazu: yes.

   heycam: I hope we can get the poll sorted out quickly. Jun is
   waiting to hear from us.

   vhardy: suggest that we could beef up our test suite.

   shepazu: we could also start out on SVG 2. But I do not know what
   Cameron's travel restrictions are.

   (discussion on whether or not would be too much travel).

Discussion on SVG 2. Based on J Watt's email.

   anthony: The test masking-filter-01.svg looks good except for the
   test description which needs a pass criteria.
   ... I would also slightly modify the test to move the green
   rectangle outside of the group so that is it always guaranteed to
   show up on top of the red.

   (discussion about the test)

   heycam: I'll update the test and add a sub-test.

   anthony: having a mask on the group applies to the whole group?

   heycam: yes

   anthony: yes, then it is ok.

   heycam: I'll check in with test description and pass criteria.

   anthony: the test looks fine (after commit).

   heycam: test approved?

   (no objection)

   <scribe> ACTION: heycam to add mask-filter-01 to test suite and
   implementation report. [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-3042 - Add mask-filter-01 to test suite
   and implementation report. [on Cameron McCormack - due 2011-05-12].

   (more discusions between heycam and anthony about the test).

   heycam: the last thing on the agenda was the email from Jonathan
   Watt about SVG 2.0 work and the process.

   shepazu: I did not quite fully agree.
   ... we would need JWatt on the call to discuss this.


     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2011JanMar/0257.html

   shepazu: I suggest we start from a blank slate so that we are aware
   of what gets put in.
   ... for SVG 2.0, we need to be very rigorous, and I think that
   editing the SVG 1.1 spec. is dangerous.
   ... the work mode needs to match the needs of the editors.

   vhardy: what do we need to decide?

   shepazu: right now, we need Erik, Chris, Cameron and myself all on
   the call, at least, to decide about how to start the effort. We also
   need JWatt on the call

   heycam: let's adjourn until we have the right attendance on the
   ... we need to decide this pretty soon.

   shepazu: we could start after the AC meeting.

   heycam: I'll try to get Jonathan on the call for next week.

   shepazu: I also wanted to discuss the scope of the 2.0 effort, as I
   outlined in email.


     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2011May/0007.html

   shepazu: I proposed 3 different approaches: 1) integration with CSS,
   short term, 2) minimal set of features, about 2 years and 3) more
   significant features, 2 to 3 years.
   ... I am intersted in the general tenure of what the group thinks
   and if there is a desire for new features in SVG.
   ... this is above and beyond what we are doing with the CSS WG
   (gradients, transforms, compositing).

   vhardy: I would suggest we work on the scope, as you suggested, and
   also turn to the community with a survey.

   shepazu: yes, this has been suggested. Does everybody agree that we
   should set up a poll?

   heycam: I agree. I think that would be better than just go with the
   www-svg feedback?

   shepazu: what is the mechanism by which we do this poll? The W3C
   polls are not really done for that.

   anthony: do we need a new polling service to collect this

   shepazu: one of the things that w3c is doing is adding
   infrastructure to allow forums.
   ... people will be able to +1 comments.
   ... this will take at least a month.

   <shepazu> trackbot, end telcon

Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 21:42:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:31 UTC