W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2016

Minutes, SVG Working Group Telcon 28 April 2016

From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:28:46 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFDDJ7w1zA+v_whnrfQ_rGfRag-aH_8u4vGMnJm2_9=BGB54Nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Formatted minutes from today's call:

Pasted below as plain text for the archives


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

                               - DRAFT -

                    SVG Working Group Teleconference

28 Apr 2016


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Apr/0028.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/28-svg-irc


          Tav, nikos, stakagi, shepazu, AmeliaBR




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]London F2F recap & SVG 2 status for CR
         2. [6]Potential Editor's meeting / F2F in June
         3. [7]Is window.SVGDocument required?
         4. [8]The HTML <base> element and same-page URL
         5. [9]Work on SVG Authoring Guide
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     * [11]Summary of Resolutions

   <Tavmjong> +Tav

   <scribe> scribe: AmeliaBR

London F2F recap & SVG 2 status for CR


     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Apr/0030.html

   NA: I sent out an email, since it was only a small group there.
   ... We got a lot done, but will also discovered a number of
   issues during the review & clean-up.
   ... We've got ~67 open issues on GitHub. Mostly editorial,
   don't need a resolution.
   ... I wanted to get people's ideas about best plan for moving
   towards CR.
   ... Option 1 is to spend next few weeks getting as much done as
   we can, set a hard deadline, then publish CR as is.
   ... But there would almost certainly be remaining issues. Also
   appendixes and stuff need lots of clean up work.

   Option 2 is have another Editor's meeting. Suggestion is
   Amsterdam in June when Amelia's there for a conference.

   scribe: And try to get spec to 100% for CR.

   Tav: I could probably get my issues done in next few weeks, but
   not sure about rest of spec.

   NA: We've got a lot of issues in chapters which don't have
   active maintainers the past few weeks.

   ABR: For myself, the specific issues I took ownership of I
   should be able to get done in next month. But there are
   chapters we didn't get to in the review, and lots of clean-up
   issues we noted but which don't have owners yet.

   DS: So the real question is how can we get more people
   ... For member companies that have been active in the past but
   not currently, we may get more engagement if we can show
   progress and a clear plan for what needs to be done.

   NA: There is probably not a single solution; many different
   reasons people have not been active.

   DS: True, but one reason is that it has been a long slog, and
   people have gotten frustrated by lack of visible progress.

   NA: Any ideas how to show progress?

   DS: Clear assessments for each chapter, summarizing outstanding
   issues and who has committed to address which. A progress
   report, basically, with a timeline for how much work needs to
   be done, how long it would take, on each chapter.
   ... Breaking down the problem into small components.
   ... Or would this process be so time consuming itself that it
   would defeat its purpose?

   NA: I don't think so. I was planning on something similar
   anyway, as part of reaching out to group members to see how
   they can contribute.


     [13] https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG2_Chapter_Assessment

   DS: How much work is it? Do we have a single tracking location?

   NA: We did have this wiki page, but it's rather out of date. I
   was thinking of maybe adding some script to GitHub, where all
   our issues are.

   ABR: GitHub does have a "Milestones" feature for grouping &
   tracking issues that block a project. Haven't used it myself,
   but I think it would be relevant.

   DS: I don't have a lot of time, but I can take a few issues
   that don't need a lot of background research.

   NA: I will contact others, see if we can get more people
   signing up for issues, but I think CR would be end of June.

Potential Editor's meeting / F2F in June

   NA: London meeting was productive, would like to do it again if
   it can work. Amelia's in Europe again & I've received
   permission to go, and we have a number of other WG members with
   limited travel budgets in the area.

   DS: We may be able to get a host from CWI in Amsterdam.

   NA: That would be great. We don't need much, just a conference
   room, wifi, and maybe some tea-making facilities.

   DS: And I think Microsoft and Google also have offices in
   ... What are the dates?

   NA: Sunday, June 19 - Wednesday June 22. If Sunday is difficult
   for meeting space, could start the Monday.

   DS: I myself won't be able to make it. Neither the budget nor
   the time.

   <nikos> [14]http://cssday.nl/2016

     [14] http://cssday.nl/2016

Is window.SVGDocument required?

   <nikos> [15]https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/18

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/18

   NA: SVG 2 currently says that it is there (deprecated) for
   historical reasons, but only ~50% of current implementations
   support it, so interoperable behavior doesn't exist.

   ABR: I lean towards deprecating something in one spec, removing
   it in next. But there are lots of other things in SVG 2 that
   have been removed outright.
   ... What are the details on lack of support? Was this a choice
   to remove, have their been complaints?

   DS: If it's in WebKit but not Blink, Blink must have removed at
   some point. There may be a discussion thread somewhere.
   ... Do we have a way of marking things in the spec as obsolete,
   instead of deprecated?

   NA: No, I don't think so.

   DS: Having a deprecated version before obsolete is mostly
   convention to support transition. But not relevant if support
   has already been removed from implementations.

   ABR: Sounds good. I don't think we need a new section on
   "obsolete" APIs, but we do need to make sure the "What's
   changed" appendix is updated to clearly indicate any API from
   SVG 1.1 that has been removed.

   RESOLUTION: Remove the window.SVGDocument alias from SVG 2.

The HTML <base> element and same-page URL references

   <nikos> [16]https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/61

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/61

   NA: I've done some reading since adding this to the agenda. I'm
   not sure I'm ready to make a decision yet.
   ... The <base> element changes how in-document links are
   interpreted. So, if you have a fill referencing a paint server,
   it will be relative to the base URL, not automatically in the
   same document.
   ... I think the desire is to be consistent with HTML. But it
   does often seem problematic with SVG.

   <nikos> [17]http://andronikos.id.au/base.svg

     [17] http://andronikos.id.au/base.svg

   Tav: Can you put a <base> in a SVG? Can you override the value?

   NA: This test file (link above) shows current behavior. We know
   allow HTML <base> in SVG, but only one per document. xml:base
   has been deprecated.

   ABR: The lack of override is an unfortunate limitation of
   <base> relative to xml:base. Would be more convenient to be
   able to reset the base for inline SVG. It comes up a lot in
   problems with single-page app frameworks; questions come up on

   NA: I'll follow-up with TabAtkins, who raised this on www-style

   ABR: Another important aspect of the discussion on www-style is
   whether URL references should be re-computed if <base> changes
   (as it does in these single-page app frameworks): causes
   implementation issues.

   NA: I'll look into this further. Thanks for the added
   information; I'll assign the GH issue to myself.

Work on SVG Authoring Guide

   DS: In the SVG Accessibility Task Force, we started work on SVG
   Accessibility Authoring Guide, but decided it would be best
   framed as an overall SVG Authoring Guide. Most best practices
   have both accessibility and other benefits.
   ... I've been working with chaals MN and Fred Esch. We've
   decided to start fresh with a new document, rather than what
   we'd been working on.
   ... Should get an initial skeleton published in next few weeks.
   ... If anyone has ideas on what should be in it, let me know.
   Or you can file issues when it's published.
   ... I would like to publish it on the main SVG repo instead of
   the SVG Accessibility repo.

   NA: Sounds good. What are the particular differences that you
   decided to start from scratch?

   DS: Well the original is from ~2001, very outdated & made
   incorrect assumptions about how things would work.
   ... chaals had re-started, but his draft was still very
   accessibility focused, wanted to generalize.

   trackbot, end telcon

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [18]Remove the window.SVGDocument alias from SVG 2.

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([20]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/04/28 21:27:16 $

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

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

   [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34
Check for newer version at [21]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/

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

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/CLI (?)/CWI/
Found Scribe: AmeliaBR
Inferring ScribeNick: AmeliaBR
Default Present: Tav, nikos, stakagi, shepazu, AmeliaBR
Present: Tav nikos stakagi shepazu AmeliaBR
Agenda: [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Apr/0028.htm
Found Date: 28 Apr 2016
Guessing minutes URL: [23]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/28-svg-minutes.html
People with action items:

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Apr/0028.html
     [23] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/28-svg-minutes.html

   [End of [24]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2016 21:29:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:04 UTC