Re: Agenda, 18 February 2016 SVG WG telcon

Thank you, Amelia, for the info and creating the issue!

Sebastian

On 18 February 2016 at 22:45, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 18 February 2016 at 00:26, Nikos Andronikos <
>> [email protected]> 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
>>
>>
>