W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2013

Compositing/Blending moving from LC to CR (was Re: minutes, 5 December 2013 SVG WG telcon)

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 21:47:35 +0100
Message-ID: <1039428816.20131206214735@w3.org>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
Hello Cameron,

Thursday, December 5, 2013, 10:44:42 PM, you wrote:

> Minutes from this week's SVG telcon are below.

> http://www.w3.org/2013/12/05-svg-minutes.html


>     cabanier: I added isolation to the at-risk list

>     krit: I think that's something we can't do?

>     cabanier: no, that's according to the process
>     ... going to CR you list the at risk issues

>     krit: don't you have to do that before LC?

>     cabanier: no it's part of going to CR

Rik is correct: listing items at-risk is done before entering CR, and
is often done when the LC review period indicates that a particular
feature is poorly understood, non-interoperably implemented by two or
more implementors who don't want to change, has unforseen and poorly
documented interactions with other features, and so on.

So it is commonly done between exiting LC and entering CR.

Dirk is correct that a complete and detailed list of changes is
required. Generally, the disposition of comments document will explain
the rationale for the change.

>     heycam: no open issues on the spec?

>     cabanier: all resolved at LC
>     ... only reason isolation is on the at risk list, is that we
>     have only one implementation so far
>     ... but I'm confident we'll have another one by the time we
>     exit CR

As Cameron mentioned after the call, there needs to be a complete
disposition of comments for all comments received since LC was
published (this includes threads that started before LC and are still
being discussed.

In the case where changes/feature requests were requested but denied
(or moved to a next version) there also needs to be a mail from the
editors asking for confirmation that no change/deferred is okay (and
preferably, confirmation back from the commentor).

If no change was requested and none made then its enough to just
record the comments and note that no change resulted.

>     heycam: what's the plan for a test suite?

Tests are not required before entering CR (but are encouraged). Having
an idea of what tests are needed, a test plan etc and a rough estimate
of how long this might take, is information that must be in the
transition request for CR.

>     cabanier: someone from our team is working on a team right now
>     ... she has more than 100 tests at the moment
>     ... some people at TtwF also wrote some tests
>     ... also Blink/Firefox/WebKit implementors writing some tests
>     ... we have a test plan

>     Tav: does that include SVG tests?

>     cabanier: yes, as well as HTML tests.
>       [11] 
> http://mire.github.io/css-blending-test-plan-proposal/css-blending-test-plan-proposal.html

>     krit: we're creating tests according to that plan

That sounds good


>     cabanier: and the Compositing modes are all there already
>     ... there are four of them, and by combining them you can do
>     src-in, dest-in, etc.
>     ... except for 'clear', but you can accomplish that in other
>     ways

Given one of the last call comment from tav, the disposition of
comments could usefully add that information (everything you can do in
SVG1 you can do with this, right?)


>     nikos: same with Compositing and Blending 2

>     Tav: what's going to be in there?

>     nikos: Compositing for SVG and HTML

OK so now I am confused again; the test plan includes tests in SVG and
HTML, but compositing for SVG and HTML is deferred to level 2?



-- 
Best regards,
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 20:47:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:48 UTC