Re: agenda+ css-writing-modes-3 review

Hi, Dirk–

Fantasai wrote up the results from the discussion and wants the SVG WG 
to confirm that it matches what was agreed.

Regards–
–Doug

On 10/2/15 12:14 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>
>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Doug Schepers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Dirk, Amelia, Cameron–
>>
>> We decided that we need (at least some of) you on the telcon to
>> really deal with this issue and help move the CSS Writing Modes 3
>> spec to CR.
>>
>> Are you available to be on the telcon next week?
>
> I wonder what the issue is. I thought we resolved the last open
> issues at the FX TF meeting in Paris a couple of weeks ago?  fantasai
> and Cameron were both it the meeting and overruled me :D. I myself
> will not be able to join.
>
> Greetings, Dirk
>
>>
>> Tav is going to be reviewing the spec in depth, and you can
>> coordinate with him to provide feedback, if you can't be on the
>> telcon.
>>
>> Thanks– –Doug
>>
>> On 9/30/15 9:58 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>> Hi, Erik–
>>>
>>> Can we please add the CSS Writing Modes 3 spec review to the
>>> agenda? Fantasai says she needs our feedback on 2 issues (listed
>>> below), and she's available to attend the telcon tomorrow to
>>> explain the issue.
>>>
>>> (Fantasai, telcon details below in Erik's original agenda
>>> email.)
>>>
>>> [[ I'm blocked on the SVGWG here:
>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/issues-cr-2014
>>>
>>> Two issues require SVGWG review
>>>
>>> first one is
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2015Sep/0016.html
>>>
>>> That's the one that needs review of spec wording
>>>
>>> second issue is this
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2015Sep/0017.html
>>>
>>> The question on hand is whether we can fold 'writing-mode: rl'
>>> and 'writing-mode: lr' together
>>>
>>> From a CSS perspective, they're the same
>>>
>>> The different values don't affect anything in the CSS model
>>>
>>> They're both horizontal writing modes, and the rl vs. lr doesn't
>>> affect bidi
>>>
>>> But the SVG spec says they affect the "inline progression
>>> direction" and I can't figure out what that means or should have
>>> an effect on
>>>
>>> But it's quite clear that it doesn't affect reordering!
>>>
>>> There's a test file here
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2015Sep/att-0027/test.svg
>>>
>>>
>>>
which does very interesting things in Presto
>>>
>>> but otherwise renders the two values identically in Blink and
>>> InkScape
>>>
>>> So, yeah, have fun with that?
>>>
>>> maybe someone in the group knows what the SVG spec was trying to
>>> say, and whether or not it was important ]]
>>>
>>> Regards– –Doug
>>>
>>> On 9/30/15 4:46 PM, Erik Dahlström wrote:
>>>> Please find the agenda for this week’s telcon below.
>>>>
>>>> Time:
>>>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=10&day=1&year=2015&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:
>>>>
>>>> * Path stroking for paths that end with tight curves (Tav)
>>>> http://tavmjong.free.fr/blog/?p=1257
>>>>
>>>> * Declarative animation and conformance
>>>> https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/23
>>>>
>>>> * SVG 2 chapter progress
>>>>
>>>
>