Re: Agenda, 18 February 2016 SVG WG telcon

Hi Sebastian,

If there's active discussion on the mailing list, it doesn't always make
sense to move it to the teleconference (where fewer people can join in).
The WG calls are more useful when all the evidence is in and a decision
needs to be made.

That said, I can bring up the matter (creating a clear & extensible naming
scheme for path data CSS properties) in next week's call.

I have also made a GitHub issue for the debate, so that it won't drop out
of sight until intentionally closed:
https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/49

~Amelia



On 18 February 2016 at 06:16, Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 18 February 2016 at 00:26, Nikos Andronikos <
> Nikos.Andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Please find the agenda for this week’s telcon below.
>>
>>
>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=02&day=18&year=2016&hour=20&min=30&sec=0&p1=0
>> Phone: +1-617-324-0000 (access code: 649 040 824)
>> IRC for minutes/discussion: #svg on irc.w3.org, port 6665
>> Agenda requests: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Agenda
>> WebEx logistics: https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/WebEx
>>
>> Agenda:
>>  * How should degenerate closed paths render in SVG [github #42] (nikos)
>>  * Can we resolve on nested a elements? [github #26] (nikos)
>>  * London F2F (nikos)
>>  * Linking: ID + SVGViewSpec [github #48] (nikos)
>>
>> Github issues on the agenda:
>> https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/labels/On%20agenda
>> The information contained in this email message and any attachments may
>> be confidential and may also be the subject to legal professional
>> privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference
>> with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and
>> prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately
>> advise the sender by return email and delete the information from your
>> system.
>>
>
> Sorry to highjack this thread, though I am wondering, what is needed for
> an issue to be considered? Reason I'm asking is that I asked to rename the
> 'd' property which started some some general discussion, which sounds
> reasonable to put on your agenda.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sebastian
>
>