IRC log of svg on 2009-01-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:34:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #svg
19:34:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/19-svg-irc
19:34:43 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:34:43 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #svg
19:34:45 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG
19:34:45 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see GA_SVGWG()2:30PM scheduled to start 4 minutes ago
19:34:46 [trackbot]
Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
19:34:46 [trackbot]
Date: 19 January 2009
19:35:16 [Zakim]
GA_SVGWG()2:30PM has now started
19:35:23 [Zakim]
+??P0
19:35:27 [heycam]
Zakim, ??P0 is me
19:35:27 [Zakim]
+heycam; got it
19:36:38 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
19:36:40 [Zakim]
-heycam
19:36:42 [Zakim]
+heycam
19:36:58 [anthony]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
19:36:58 [Zakim]
+anthony; got it
19:38:01 [ed]
ed has joined #svg
19:38:55 [Zakim]
+??P2
19:39:04 [ed]
Zakim, ??P2 is me
19:39:04 [Zakim]
+ed; got it
19:39:29 [ed]
Zakim, who's here?
19:39:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see heycam, anthony, ed
19:39:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ed, Zakim, RRSAgent, heycam, anthony, ed_work, trackbot
19:47:00 [heycam]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-wg/2009JanMar/0050.html
19:47:44 [ed]
scribe: erik
19:47:47 [ed]
scribeNick: ed
19:47:51 [ed]
chair: heycam
19:48:05 [ed]
Topic: ISSUE-2201
19:48:09 [ed]
ISSUE-2201+
19:48:12 [ed]
ISSUE-2201?
19:48:12 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2201 -- Return value of SVGAnimationElement.getStartTime unclear -- OPEN
19:48:12 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2201
19:48:32 [heycam]
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#getStartTime-return-value
19:49:39 [ed]
CMC: wasn't sure if we decided if we return a value for the interval if it wasn't active at the moment (so the next interval)
19:50:31 [ed]
ED: just wondering which is more intuitive to authors
19:50:40 [ed]
AG: what does batik do?
19:50:54 [ed]
CMC: think something slightly different, actually returns NaN
19:51:50 [ed]
...Opera currently will do the current interval whether if it's active or not
19:52:57 [ed]
...if we returned the start time of the current interval if they're not active scripts could still compare that against the document time to determine if that's active or not
19:53:23 [ed]
...don't mind either way
19:53:38 [ed]
AG: do we want to wait for jwatt to have his opinion?
19:53:47 [ed]
CMC: brian brought up the discussion originally
19:54:10 [ed]
...he also asked on svg-developers if anyone used this, and what they thought
19:54:23 [ed]
...no replies yet
19:57:09 [ed]
ED: it may be that sometimes it's tricky to time the call such that the getStartTime is when the interval is active, and you might expect to get something instead of an exception if the next interval is computed
19:57:26 [ed]
CMC: what about the duration one?
19:58:06 [ed]
ED: that's getSimpleDuration, so the name says pretty much what it does
19:58:51 [ed]
CMC: difficult do decide given that there's other timing things that are not exposed
19:59:57 [ed]
...given that we can expose a bit more information by having it return the current interval and that you can compare against the documenttime, and that you can call it on beginevent, it should be safe to du the "current interval"
20:00:24 [ed]
AG: i'm fine with that, opera would have to change?
20:01:04 [ed]
ED: yes, to raise the exception
20:01:48 [ed]
ACTION: heycam to change the http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#getStartTime-return-value erratum to use "current interval" and to move the item to proposed
20:01:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2407 - Change the http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#getStartTime-return-value erratum to use \"current interval\" and to move the item to proposed [on Cameron McCormack - due 2009-01-26].
20:02:10 [ed]
Topic: ISSUE-2199
20:02:15 [ed]
ISSUE-2199?
20:02:16 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2199 -- Underlying transform value erratum now conflicts with 1.2T -- RAISED
20:02:16 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2199
20:02:24 [heycam]
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#cleanup-wording-underlying-value
20:02:39 [ed]
CMC: i've updated this to bring in the text in 1.2T
20:03:03 [ed]
...copied the text and changed some links from SMIL to SMIL Animation
20:03:35 [ed]
...I've brought it back to draft to review it again
20:03:51 [ed]
AG: doesn't look like a big behavioural change
20:04:45 [ed]
CMC: it's not really explicit in the text, but this text implies that when you're doing the scale transofrmation animation and the scale is zero (like in a to animation and you need to know the starting value)
20:05:15 [ed]
...it's not explicit in tiny 1.2 either anymore
20:05:23 [ed]
...we used to have a table
20:05:33 [ed]
...but was removed before moving to CR
20:05:51 [ed]
...based on comments from DOH
20:06:14 [ed]
AG: wasn't much in the spec before anyway
20:06:24 [ed]
CMC: yes, this was rather undefined
20:06:41 [ed]
...no tests in the 1.1 testsuite that rely on the underlaying value
20:06:53 [ed]
AG: I've no problem changing that to proposed
20:07:35 [ed]
ED: one thing I was wondering about was if the references affects this at all
20:08:13 [ed]
CMC: the first link there is just describing the from-to calculation
20:09:15 [ed]
ED: right, this is probably close enough
20:09:28 [ed]
...and good to use similar wording
20:09:51 [ed]
CMC: how do we do tests for errata items?
20:10:32 [ed]
AG: we should add tests in the 1.1F2/tests/svg directory going forward
20:10:47 [ed]
CMC: we'll have to release the testsuite again, right?
20:10:55 [ed]
AG: right
20:11:37 [ed]
CMC: so maybe we could publish the second edition spec along with a new snapshot of the testsuite
20:11:51 [heycam]
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/test-cases/text-intro-06-t.svg
20:11:56 [ed]
ED: that sounds good yes
20:12:38 [ed]
CMC: the links should point to the right place though, they don't currently
20:12:46 [ed]
...we should move the old tests over
20:14:01 [ed]
ACTION: heycam to create a test for http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#cleanup-wording-underlying-value (check if we have a test for it in the 1.2T testsuite) and then move the erratum to proposed
20:14:01 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2408 - Create a test for http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#cleanup-wording-underlying-value (check if we have a test for it in the 1.2T testsuite) and then move the erratum to proposed [on Cameron McCormack - due 2009-01-26].
20:17:08 [ed]
Topic: ISSUE-2103?
20:17:13 [ed]
ISSUE-2103?
20:17:14 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2103 -- i18n comment 3: Inline -progression typo -- CLOSED
20:17:14 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2103
20:17:31 [ed]
Topic: ISSUE-2203
20:17:37 [ed]
ISSUE-2203?
20:17:37 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2203 -- color-profile "local" IDL attribute erratum incorrect -- RAISED
20:17:37 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2203
20:17:55 [heycam]
http://www.w3.org/mid/20090116032239.GB3580@arc.mcc.id.au
20:17:59 [ed]
CMC: this was raised by me a while ago
20:18:09 [ed]
...I think i was incorrect in raising it
20:18:37 [ed]
...it was for the IDL and there's an attribute named "_local"
20:18:47 [ed]
...and "local" is a keyword in IDL
20:18:55 [ed]
...so the underscore is actually needed
20:18:59 [ed]
...like the comment said
20:19:40 [ed]
ED: ok, let's remove the errata item
20:19:54 [ed]
CMC: yes, that's probably safe to do
20:20:56 [ed]
ACTION: AG to remove the color-profile "local" IDL attribute erratum for SVG 1.1 (addressing ISSUE-2203)
20:20:56 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2409 - Remove the color-profile \"local\" IDL attribute erratum for SVG 1.1 (addressing ISSUE-2203) [on Anthony Grasso - due 2009-01-26].
20:21:39 [ed]
Topic: www-svg feedback
20:21:44 [heycam]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009Jan/0024.html
20:22:28 [ed]
CMC: for these methods what happens if you call them before the timeline is started
20:23:47 [ed]
ED: so I think I was able to answer his first question about animationsPaused
20:23:56 [ed]
...though we could possibly clarify it
20:24:24 [ed]
CMC: for beginElementAt
20:25:02 [ed]
...we should add the offset to time zero I think
20:25:21 [ed]
AG: yes, makes it less confusing I think
20:25:34 [ed]
CMC: would be consistent to do it that way I think
20:26:54 [ed]
...my suggestion would be if you did "beginElementAt(5)" it would be five seconds after the document timeline started, not from when it was called if it was called before the timeline started
20:27:19 [Zakim]
-anthony
20:27:24 [ed]
ED: that would probably be the most intuitive yes
20:27:44 [ed]
CMC: and then we'd get the timelineBegin from 1.2T if you wanted to start the timeline earlier
20:27:53 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
20:28:11 [anthony]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
20:28:11 [Zakim]
+anthony; got it
20:28:26 [ed]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009Jan/0029.html
20:28:59 [ed]
CMC: it's a bit weird to fix up the starttime to be some negative time
20:29:38 [ed]
...that's jwatts suggestion to run the animation before the timeline has started
20:31:08 [ed]
ED: the ElementTimeControl API is slightly different in 1.2T, something to note
20:32:17 [ed]
...IMHO it's a bit strange to not look at 1.2T when implementing SVG SMIL support from scratch
20:33:23 [ed]
ACTION: heycam to reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009Jan/0024.html to say what we decided and that we've made erratum for it
20:33:23 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2410 - Reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009Jan/0024.html to say what we decided and that we've made erratum for it [on Cameron McCormack - due 2009-01-26].
20:34:17 [heycam]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009Jan/0026.html
20:34:38 [ed]
Topic: animate-elem-82-t query, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009Jan/0026.html
20:35:10 [ed]
CMC: brian points out that this test was copied over from 1.1, but it relied on the behaviour that we changed in 1.2T based on DOH's comments
20:35:23 [ed]
AG: this test has always had issues related to it
20:35:28 [ed]
...was it even approved?
20:35:32 [ed]
CMC: does say so
20:36:06 [ed]
...presumably we've changed the definition of paced to something we're happy with in tiny
20:36:23 [ed]
...and this test should be removed and/or changed from the tiny 1.2 testsuite at least
20:36:42 [ed]
...but should we also look at changing what's in 1.1?
20:36:47 [ed]
...or just leave it
20:37:57 [ed]
CMC: opera does the 1.2T way right?
20:38:30 [ed]
ED: since this issue went back and forth a number of times I'm not sure if we decided to hold off on changing anything
20:38:52 [ed]
CMC: this test in the 1.2T testsuite, we should eitehr change it or remove it
20:39:30 [ed]
...only some subtests rely on the pacing, don't know which
20:41:05 [ed]
ACTION: review 1.2T/tests/animate-elem-82-t.svg and make sure the positions are correct for the paced animations, and move the test back to draft/unapproved for now
20:41:05 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - review
20:41:12 [ed]
ACTION: ED to review 1.2T/tests/animate-elem-82-t.svg and make sure the positions are correct for the paced animations, and move the test back to draft/unapproved for now
20:41:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2411 - Review 1.2T/tests/animate-elem-82-t.svg and make sure the positions are correct for the paced animations, and move the test back to draft/unapproved for now [on Erik Dahlström - due 2009-01-26].
20:42:21 [ed]
Topic: testsuite
20:42:38 [ed]
AG: haven't started writing the xslt stylesheet yet
20:42:51 [ed]
ACTION-2385
20:43:24 [ed]
AG: most things can be copied across, but some empty fields need to be filled out
20:43:40 [ed]
CMC: so once that's done the testsuite will be in good shape for adding tests to it
20:44:04 [ed]
AG: you can do that now anyway, we can make the xsl look for certain elements and only change tose
20:44:18 [ed]
CMC: we haven't copied over the tests yet have we?
20:44:20 [ed]
AG: we did
20:44:29 [ed]
...but they're still using the old template
20:44:51 [ed]
...i've been organizing the last bits of the f2f, so I'll have more time this week to look at it
20:45:48 [ed]
...if anyone wants to make a new test just use the new template
20:46:36 [anthony]
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/templates/
20:47:26 [ed]
...there are some new fields
20:47:41 [ed]
...the testdescription field allows references to the spec to be put in
20:47:49 [ed]
...and which parts of the spec is being tested
20:48:05 [ed]
...and because multiple parts can be tested you can put multiple references
20:48:14 [ed]
...tehre's a field for pass criteria
20:48:48 [ed]
...the approved attribute has been removed, it's only using status now
20:50:06 [ed]
CMC: does testdescription need to be there?
20:50:10 [ed]
AG: probably not
20:50:39 [ed]
...will give an example
20:51:40 [anthony]
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/svg/text-tspan-02-b.svg
20:55:18 [ed]
ED: what about future specs, we might not have a full absolute link?
20:55:25 [ed]
AG: good point
20:55:53 [ed]
...we could make an xslt for publication
20:57:01 [ed]
ED: we already put some spec links into the harness, based on naming convention
20:58:19 [ed]
AG: that's based on sectionnames, so with xlink:href you can point to a specific place in the spec
20:58:58 [Zakim]
-heycam
20:58:59 [Zakim]
-ed
20:59:00 [Zakim]
-anthony
20:59:02 [Zakim]
GA_SVGWG()2:30PM has ended
20:59:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were heycam, anthony, ed
20:59:07 [ed]
Zakim, bye
20:59:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #svg
20:59:12 [ed]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:59:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/19-svg-minutes.html ed
22:22:40 [heycam]
heycam has joined #svg