IRC log of svg on 2019-09-30
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 20:00:42 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #svg
- 20:00:42 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/30-svg-irc
- 20:00:44 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 20:00:44 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #svg
- 20:00:46 [trackbot]
- Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference
- 20:00:46 [trackbot]
- Date: 30 September 2019
- 20:00:47 [krit]
- chair: krit
- 20:00:50 [krit]
- present+
- 20:03:13 [stakagi]
- present+
- 20:03:26 [myles]
- myles has joined #svg
- 20:03:26 [plh]
- present+
- 20:03:54 [myles]
- is anyone else having trouble?
- 20:04:41 [Tav_]
- present+
- 20:05:00 [AmeliaBR]
- present+
- 20:05:13 [chris]
- present+
- 20:07:12 [krit]
- ScribeNick: krit
- 20:07:48 [krit]
- plh: I've been going around to various WGs at TPAC and talked about continuous specs.
- 20:08:17 [krit]
- plh: We hoped that the WG would be able to ship a REC for quite some time. But the WG wasn't because of lack of resources.
- 20:08:30 [krit]
- plh: Seems like you are not going to REC any time soon.
- 20:08:49 [krit]
- plh: I've been trying to get more people to join the WG but not with much success.
- 20:09:24 [krit]
- plh: The sentiment, at least mine, has been to add continuous working model, live editing into process.
- 20:09:28 [plh]
- https://www.w3.org/2019/Talks/TPAC/continuous-standards/#
- 20:09:45 [krit]
- plh: I am not going into detail but added a link. SVG seems to be a candidate for the new process.
- 20:10:00 [krit]
- plh: We would move the spec into a living standard in a give term.
- 20:10:39 [krit]
- plh: It would depend on work but we would be willing to give some funding to get to a REC for SVG 2.
- 20:11:21 [krit]
- plh: I don't know what people feel at this call: If you think we are done soon we don't need this discussion. If you think it would take some time I'd like to hear where members think the WG should go.
- 20:11:56 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: We had a talk about it at the TPAC session. Our existing open issues would keep us busy for another year unless we get more ppl to contribute.
- 20:12:15 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: that doesn't mean we would be ready for REC as we would also need to work on testing.
- 20:12:31 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: We agreed to drive spec work together with testing work.
- 20:12:42 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: But I agree that we are not getting to REC any time soon.
- 20:13:11 [krit]
- krit: When would the new progress come into place?
- 20:13:19 [krit]
- plh: Not before 2020
- 20:13:47 [krit]
- plh: Depends if we can get agreement from ppl who are still sceptical
- 20:14:23 [krit]
- plh: How much would be needed to get the work finished? If we find someone to work full-time, how much would it take to finish editing and testing?
- 20:14:49 [krit]
- krit: Of course that would depend on the background of the person and the knowledge of SVG.
- 20:15:09 [krit]
- plh: If someone is interested, you can reach out to me in private as well.
- 20:16:15 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: Difficult to estimate since the work is ad hoc. If someone would work half time for the next year would be a huge push. Someone working absolutely full-time might get blocked by required reviews and discussions.
- 20:16:47 [krit]
- plh: If you have contacts who would be able to help, let me know as well.
- 20:18:39 [krit]
- krit: I think an experienced person could drive the spec drastically. Time for reviews usually is much less efforts than the edits themselves. I am less pessimistic when it comes to being blocked by reviews.
- 20:18:41 [plh]
- s/2020/April 2020/
- 20:20:07 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: Any help would certainly be welcome. To living standards: There had been talks to move to WHATWG but my personal experience is that we need a foundation first established with tests before we can talk about modules.
- 20:20:36 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: SVG2 would be the last monolithic spec all modules would be based on. A living standard is a different way to look at it.
- 20:21:02 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: Can we also decide to got living standards after going to REC with SVG 2?
- 20:21:36 [krit]
- plh: continuous standards don't exist today at W3C but you should be thinking about it.
- 20:21:41 [AmeliaBR]
- s/talks to move/talks about a living standard model in the context of a possible move/
- 20:21:58 [krit]
- plh: having a milestone for SVG 2 would help a lot.
- 20:22:51 [AmeliaBR]
- s/about modules/about either living standards or modules, which we have been mostly considering for the future/
- 20:22:57 [krit]
- plh: We had discussions about publishing SVG as an ISO standard. Would that work with SVG 2 too?
- 20:23:06 [krit]
- s/plh/krit/
- 20:23:32 [krit]
- chris: We had this discussion but got objections from W3C members since SVG2 was going to be finished today.
- 20:23:39 [krit]
- plh: I didn't get this question before.
- 20:25:24 [krit]
- krit: Sounds like there is more to think about before agreeing on living standard. For now, we should find persons who are able and willing to do editing work full-time and get the funding from W3C.
- 20:25:41 [krit]
- plh: We would like to get some estimates as well first.
- 20:25:55 [krit]
- Tav_: I don't see a lot of activity on browsers.
- 20:26:25 [krit]
- plh: My understanding is that we get SVG 2 closer to reality. So if there are un-implemented things they probably should move out.
- 20:27:04 [krit]
- chris: There aren't fancy features in SVG 2 that are not implemented. It is all about details at this point.
- 20:27:24 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: Some times we do not get the necessary feedback.
- 20:27:35 [krit]
- plh: To be fair, SVG2 never will be perfect.
- 20:28:09 [krit]
- plh: That would be a point for getting SVG2 to REC and keep iterating in a living standard
- 20:28:42 [krit]
- plh: There are issues that haven't been fixed in years in browsers. Having tests would help a lot. If we can't write tests it is less likely to get the issues fixed.
- 20:28:54 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: Browsers indeed seem to focus more on tests.
- 20:29:23 [krit]
- plh: If you can't write tests it seems impossible to differentiate implementations and browsers care less about this part of the specification
- 20:31:36 [krit]
- topic: F2F in 2020
- 20:32:28 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: Anyone see value in having a F2F before next TPAC? Should we rather spend budged and time in remote work? F2F could mean a workshop/hackathon fashion where we sit down to do the edits and testing.
- 20:32:40 [krit]
- Tav_: it was useful when Nikos and I was sitting down
- 20:32:50 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: It is a good way to force yourself to focus.
- 20:32:53 [plh]
- q+
- 20:33:23 [krit]
- plh: lAlternative is to have a remote f2f meeting where you do video for 2-3h at a time.
- 20:33:40 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: we could consider that since we are a small enough group
- 20:33:58 [krit]
- myles: When in the year were you thinking about it.
- 20:34:10 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: Just wanted to know if there is general interest.
- 20:34:32 [krit]
- myles: would prefer not to travel for the next few months.
- 20:34:45 [krit]
- chris: I would be in favour since it has been valuable last time.
- 20:35:04 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: Lets keep it in mind. We could still set up a remote hackathon.
- 20:35:54 [krit]
- krit: We would need a clear agenda if we meet f2f if we are meeting in person.
- 20:36:18 [krit]
- krit: Do you want to drive the remote hackathon idea?
- 20:36:27 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: sure.
- 20:36:40 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: Agree that we should have an idea what work is getting done.
- 20:36:46 [AmeliaBR]
- ack plh
- 20:38:50 [krit]
- topic: Disabling masks and clipPaths when display is none
- 20:38:57 [krit]
- GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/245
- 20:39:24 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: This one Is tricky since there is a case where the browser implementations do not match the spec.
- 20:39:38 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: We need to figure out what browsers are doing in the finer details.
- 20:39:52 [krit]
- https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/245#issuecomment-390863839
- 20:41:11 [krit]
- krit: Did the investigation on browser support for <clipPath> and <mask>
- 20:41:29 [krit]
- krit: also differed between resources applied to HTML or SVG elements
- 20:41:49 [krit]
- krit: seems like browsers are doing more or less the same with 2 exceptions (see comment https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/245#issuecomment-390863839)
- 20:42:41 [krit]
- krit: The CSS WG discussed the issue and let it to the SVG WG to resolve on the final behaviour.
- 20:44:45 [krit]
- krit: IMO there are 2 possibilities: 1) Ignore the mask/clipPath, has no effect on rendering 2) keep it unspecified
- 20:45:26 [krit]
- chris: This was a change we made midway at the beginning of SVG. On SVG Filters we got no output. So we said if filters are broken it has no effect.
- 20:45:46 [krit]
- chris: So I expect that the implementations were different.
- 20:46:05 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: This is not about broken masks/clipPath. It is about display: none on resource itself.
- 20:46:24 [krit]
- chris: at the time <defs> was described as do-not render
- 20:46:55 [krit]
- chris: this was not implemented as expected. It lead to implementations not rendering anything in <defs> and might be the source of what we see today.
- 20:48:25 [krit]
- krit: Yes, that seems the case for some browsers that do not create a rendering tree for <defs> content or elements with display none
- 20:48:36 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: Agree that we should follow what implementations do.
- 20:49:55 [krit]
- krit: So are members fine to say it should not apply to rendering the SVG/HTML element? Matching the majority of browsers but keep an option for others to implement it differently for technical reasons?
- 20:50:14 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: Not a fan of should instead of must but if it helps implementation to conform to the spec.
- 20:50:59 [krit]
- krit: I understand the concerns with the proposals but do I hear objections?
- 20:51:01 [krit]
- chris: no
- 20:51:10 [AmeliaBR]
- display: none and filters, https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4213
- 20:51:13 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: we have a similar issue for filters. Should it work the same way?
- 20:52:40 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: FF seems to disable rendering of the element which seems less useful
- 20:52:50 [krit]
- krit: So similar results as for mask/clipPath
- 20:53:14 [krit]
- krit: Can we agree to let all behave the same?
- 20:53:18 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: yes.
- 20:53:26 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: as long as we have tests in place.
- 20:53:45 [krit]
- krit: I can definitely add tests to web platform tests
- 20:53:55 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: and we would need edits to the specs.
- 20:54:52 [krit]
- AmeliaBR: we have places where we say display does not apply and now we need to describe how it does have an affect. And we need to sync all the changes across all specs and SVG2
- 20:54:56 [krit]
- krit: fair point
- 20:55:46 [krit]
- proposed resolution: display: none on mask/clipPath/filter element should have no affect on the rendered SVG/HTML element the resource applies to as in it was not specified for that element
- 20:57:04 [AmeliaBR]
- proposed resolution: display: none on mask/clipPath/filter element (or ancestor) causes the graphical effect to be ignored, so there is no impact on the rendering of the SVG/HTML element the resource applies to (as if it was not specified for that element)
- 20:57:53 [krit]
- RSOLUTION: display: none on mask/clipPath/filter element (or ancestor) should causes the graphical effect to be ignored, so there is no impact on the rendering of the SVG/HTML element the resource applies to (as if it was not specified for that element)
- 20:59:09 [AmeliaBR]
- s/RSOLUTION/RESOLUTION/
- 20:59:20 [krit]
- trackbot, stop telcon
- 20:59:20 [trackbot]
- Sorry, krit, I don't understand 'trackbot, stop telcon'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
- 20:59:28 [krit]
- trackbot, end telcon
- 20:59:28 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 20:59:28 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been krit, stakagi, plh, Tav_, AmeliaBR, chris
- 20:59:36 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 20:59:36 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/30-svg-minutes.html trackbot
- 20:59:37 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 20:59:37 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items