W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > April 2008

minutes 30 april 2008 XHTML2 call [DRAFT]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:26:54 +0100
To: public-xhtml2@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080430142523.M89956@hicom.net>

aloha!

minutes from the 30 April 2008 XHTML2 WG weekly teleconference can be 
found online at:

http://www.w3.org/2008/04/30-xhtml-minutes.html

and below, as plain text, following my signature; the IRC log of the 
call is available from:

http://www.w3.org/2008/04/30-xhtml-irc

as usual, please log any corrections, comments, mis-attributions or 
mistakes by replying to this announcement on-list...

note that there were no action items or resolutions logged at the 30 
April 2008 meeting,

gregory.

     _________________________________________________________________

                                   - DRAFT -

                        XHTML2 WG Weekly Teleconference

30 Apr 2008

   Agenda

   See also: IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Roland, Gregory_Rosmaita, yamx, markbirbeck, Alessio_Cartocci

   Regrets
          Steven, Steven_Pemberton, Tina

   Chair
          Roland

   Scribe
          Gregory_Rosmaita

Contents

     * Topics
         1. CURIES
         2. Access Module
         3. Role Module
         4. RDFa Feedback
         5. RM Comments
     * Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________________



   <scribe> Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita

   <scribe> ScribeNick: oedipus

   XML Base (Second Edition) - Steven not around to address

   RM: face2face meeting -- any registrants?
   ... a lot of no answers so far

   wiki: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml2/wiki/2008-06-Minneapolis-FtF

   registration: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/32107/xhtml2ftf200806/

   RM: poll those on phone

   Yam: no, don't think so

   GJR: probable conflict

   MB: still negotiating -- away most of may on business trips

   AC: don't think can attend, but interested in doing so remotely

CURIES

   RM: SP sent replies out to TAG; discovered earlier, unaddressed
   comment from TAG: talked with Shane about it, don't know where SM got
   to with thAt; same on Mime Types

   Yam: 2 Minor comments: distinguish XHTML Basic 1.0 and 1.1 - remove
   ambiguity; CSS file for the W3C TR is very old, improper use -- says
   updated 2006, but much older than that

   RM: send comments to list, please so on record
   ... last time talked to StevenP, still no feedback from Steve Bratt on
   either document

   Yam; Basic 1.1 M12n - transition request pending, right?

   RM: correct

Access Module

   GJR: request for activate="inspect" dropped

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Apr/0083.html

   GJR: awaiting Jim Allan post to public-xhtml2 -- GJR will ping him
   today -- hopefully get to list today

   RM: once get material, will review and can vote next week to go to
   Last Call

Role Module

   RM: comes out of second LC soon -- no comments thusfar

RDFa Feedback

   MB: few comments on RDFa -- most of them resolved; nothing that
   affects things materially

RM Comments

   <Roland>
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Apr/0066.html

   RM: comments on Mime draft
   ... Appendix A. Compatibility Guidelines comments:
   ... looking for specificity; re: empty elements, helpful for authors
   to use this and not have to go off and find attributes that it
   effects; empty elements is a hsort list (included in email cited
   above) -- should list them in document
   ... document ought to make it as easy as possible for reader to create
   a new document, rather than leave it to them to discover rules
   ... is that something people agree with?

   MB: yes

   GJR: yes

   Yam: yes

   RM: lang and xml:lang - says use xml:lang - does not say don't or
   should not use lang attribute; need to state use xml:lang and not lang

   MB: given goal of this is to make it so html and xhtml interchangable,
   don't know if should be so strong on XML features

   RM: agree good question -- encountered when drafting examples

   GJR: have not been able to find AT that switches in response to
   xml:lang - still key off lang

   RM: good example

   MB: target renderer is XML renderer, not an HTML renderer; describe
   best practice for authors of XHTML document whose work will be served
   as HTML; should be stated other way around to get best results - use
   lang and xml:lang

   RM: best answer i have is specify both -- should record which browsers
   and which versions support xml:lang -- shouldn't leave issue of use of
   other one dangling
   ... do use xml:lang or use lang or specify both

   MB: generic XML feature use that has been the model, but if HTML
   feature available, why not use it? if we tell people to use XSL rather
   than CSS will have problem -- can't load boath stylesheets;

   RM: aiming for those that work in browsers we are interested in --
   likely will be HTML versions; finding a lot of HTML browsers do
   support XML features, but picked and chosen; develop sample documents
   to run against series of browsers, record results and report

   MB: seems like a lot of work to gain very little; know UAs support
   HTML, so need to ensure that XHTML works

   RM: features that only work in XML/XHTML are the issue -- what about
   them? HTML browsers recognize limited set of XML features need to
   document

   MB: if make assertion, have to prove it; someone's got to do this work

   RM: good practices or recommendation -- this is the way to do it

   MB: if start recommending things that aren't really necessary, then
   making more work for all involved -- reduce work to do verification by
   scaling down requirements

   RM: don't want reader to infer -- do use lang, use xml:lang -- should
   say "do this, and don't do that"

   MB: fragment identifiers -- same thing -- use id attribute, do not use
   name attribute

   RM: can't just say "do what HTML does" -- won't work with XHTML
   compact forms
   ... don't make distinctions between 1.0 and 1.1 -- clarify what Basic
   means -- going back to yam's point
   ... want document that is valid XHTML rendered by HTML

   Yam: completely different in mobile -- some can support basic 1.0 and
   some basic 1.1

   RM: like those to be XHTML Basic, rendered in a non-mobile UA that
   renders HTML

   Yam: more interested in how UA can inform its capabilities using HTTP
   protocol; like to make very clear how will profile be used to identify
   basic 1.0 or basic 1.1
   ... such notificiation is VERY important in mobile devices

   RM: SM says Mime document follows these rules -- implements what says
   you should do
   ... additional comments, please send to list and we will work through
   them;
   ... other items for discussion?

   Yam; will send mime type comment to xhtml mailing list

   RM: adjourn

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 14:27:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:48 GMT