Re: Agenda, 1 October 2015 SVG WG telcon

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:08:08 +0200, David Dailey  =

<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Dahlstr=C3=B6m [mailto:erik@dahlstr=C3=B6m.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 4:47 PM
> To: www-svg
> Subject: Agenda, 1 October 2015 SVG WG telcon
>
> Please find the agenda for this week=E2=80=99s telcon below.
>
> Time:
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=3D10&day=3D=
1&year=3D2015&hour=3D20&min=3D30&sec=3D0&p1=3D0
> 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=3D1257
>
> * Declarative animation and conformance
>    https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/23
>
> * SVG 2 chapter progress
> -------------------
>
> I see from discussion following the meeting that one of the CSS agenda=
  =

> items (css-writing-modes) was indeed addressed.
>
> I think the majority of authors who have developed content that is  =

> consistent with SVG1.1 who fear that our industrial, scholarly and  =

> artistic work is about to be deprecated with no workable functionality=
  =

> to replace it, are more concerned perhaps, with the status of  =

> https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/23 in particular the clarification=
  =

> of what standards compliance means vis a vis declarative animation,  =

> relationships to existing content, the parts of SVG DOM (as with animV=
al  =

> vs baseVal) and methods to pass events back and forth between  =

> declarative and scripted methods (onend, onbegin, beginElement(), etc.=
).
>
> When one writer on the github discussion writes
>
> "If there is / will be consensus in the SVG WG that both script  =

> animation and declarative animation (incl SVG's animation elements)  =

> should be required for dynamic SVG viewers (I think both should be  =

> required for eg browsers), then the wording (eg in the SVG2 spec) shou=
ld  =

> be updated to unambiguously state that.
>
> Many developers want/need SVG SMIL / SVG's animation elements. If ther=
e  =

> is / will be consensus in the SVG WG that both script animation and  =

> declarative animation (incl SVG's animation elements) should be requir=
ed  =

> for dynamic SVG viewers (I think both should be required for eg  =

> browsers), then the wording (eg in the SVG2 spec) should be updated to=
  =

> unambiguously state that.
>
> Many developers want/need SVG SMIL / SVG's animation elements."
>
> I think many who work in at least a dozen different sectors of world  =

> economy would concur. Human communication is far too large an issue to=
  =

> be left in the hands of a few narrow economic interests.
>
> Was that issue discussed? Was consensus found?
>
> Regards
> David

Hi David,
sorry, I simply forgot to send out the message; we didn't have a quorum =
 =

yesterday, so the call was cancelled.

We will revisit the issues on the call next week, but in the mean time  =

feel free to contribute to the github issue, or on the threads on www-sv=
g.

Cheers
/Erik