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

[XHTML] minutes: 2008-11-19

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:33:52 +0000
To: public-xhtml2@w3.org
Message-Id: <20081119163216.M75469@hicom.net>

aloha!

minutes from today's XHTML2 Working Group Teleconference are available
as hypertext at:

http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html

and as an IRC log at:

http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-irc

as usual, please report any errors, omissions, misattributions and/or
clarifications by repllying to this announcement on-list...

note that the following 6 action items were assigned at today's telecon:

   * ACTION: Steven - request CR Transition for Role Module
     http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/30

   * ACTION: Steven - request CR transition for Access Module
     http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/31

   * ACTION: Shane to update XML Events 2 draft so it has a diff 
     mark to previous public working draft AND to the previous 
     recommendation:
     http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/32

   * ACTION: Shane to write a quick summary of the position w.r.t.
     DOM2 vs. DOM3 in XML Events 2
     http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/33

   * ACTION: Roland - draft roadmap for XHTML2 to discuss
     reasonableness at next call [recorded in
     http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/34

   * ACTION: Mark - ask XForms about Access Module concerns
     http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/35

gregory.

     _________________________________________________________________

                                   - DRAFT -

                      XHTML2 Working Group Teleconference

19 Nov 2008

   Agenda

   See also: IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Alessio, Gregory_Rosmaita, Roland, ShaneM, Tina, markbirbeck

   Regrets
          Steven

   Chair
          Roland

   Scribe
          Gregory_Rosmaita

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Agenda Review, News and New Items
         2. State of Documents/Deliverables
         3. XML Events 2 progress towards last call
         4. Upcoming Calls
         5. Roadmap for XHTML2
         6. Lingering Items
         7. Action Item Review
     * Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________________



   <trackbot> Date: 19 November 2008

   <scribe> Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita

   <scribe> ScribeNick: oedipus

   RM: regrets from Steven who is sick

Agenda Review, News and New Items

   <markbirbeck> on my way...just be a minute...

   <alessio> hi all :)

   http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/agenda

   SM: disposition of comments for Access and Role are done and are up -
   just updated today

   RM: all necessary to move forward

   SM: for Access and Role, yes; CURIEs already in process

State of Documents/Deliverables

   <alessio> Tina, I'm just writing a post for italian community about
   your XHTML article on "The Developer's Archive"

   RM: SP sent transition requests; nothing scheduled yet as for
   publication; waiting for commm team

   <Tina> alessio: excellent. Thank you.

   RM: Role and Access Modules in same state; WG voted to forward; drafts
   ready and disposition of comments are also ready

   <scribe> ACTION: Steven - request CR Transition for Role Module
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - - request CR Transition for Role Module
   [on Steven Pemberton - due 2008-11-26].

   <scribe> ACTION: Steven - request CR transition for Access Module
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - - request CR transition for Access
   Module [on Steven Pemberton - due 2008-11-26].

XML Events 2 progress towards last call

   RM: WG voted to send XML Events 2 to LC
   ... any comments on Events document?
   ... do we need to resolve outstanding actions?
   ... Action 1 is first: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/1

   <Roland> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/1

   <ShaneM> ACTION: Shane to update XML Events 2 draft so it has a diff
   mark to previous public working draft AND to the previous
   recommendation [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Update XML Events 2 draft so it has a
   diff mark to previous public working draft AND to the previous
   recommendation [on Shane McCarron - due 2008-11-26].

   RM: only way can write need to be done before any other event fired -
   does it make significant difference for last call?

   SM: be ok to put in comment perhaps -- not an open issue - not from
   reviewer -- WG not sure if on right track

   RM: could put in as comment that welcome feedback on that particular
   statement

   AC: agree

   RM: reviewing actions on me: action 1 "- write to DOM3 guys on when
   registration will occur and when events can be fired; coordinate
   deeper discussion"
   ... can we put comment into spec saying welcome feedback on timing or
   do we need something more definitive

   MB: something we raised ourselves;

   RM: action on me was to open dialog on subject with DOM3 people
   ... another topic - DOM3 going to LC by end of first quarter of next
   year; should re-examine to ensure XML Events work in DOM2 and DOM3

   SM: isn't that the issue: we need qnames, and if so, we need DOM3
   Events?

   MB: could do mapping at implementation layer; DOM2 doesn't have
   qnames, but layer on top could

   RM: do we need qnames - if have event with qnames, can use, if not,
   then don't use

   SM: do you believe that DOM2 events permit the definition of arbitrary
   events

   MB: those with colon?

   SM: in general - defined collection of event tokens that can't be
   extended

   RM: did that with XML Events 1

   SM: can you put colon in name - i say no because is a token

   MB: one way to go is to follow RM's lead - depends on architecture
   which to use; if use DOM2, qnames not supported (should be explicitly
   stated)

   SM: needed to write portable documents

   MB: could map it

   SM: how would approach?

   MB: XML Events 2 layer is goig to have to have sub-code written to
   have calls made to DOM2 or DOM3 -- something underneath, core code,
   will have to do registration of events
   ... given system self-contained xyz:event mapped to xyz_event no one
   would be any the wiser

   SM: ok

   MB: self-contained system; weak point - XForms has xforms-submit but
   can't have xf:submit then

   SM: MB's approach clean - have to put in normative requirement on DOM2
   events, and no normative req on DOM3 events; problem of timing; can't
   rely on DOM3

   MB: we don't have to do mapping; implementation does it

   SM: "must behave as if..." is all that is needed
   ... implementations based on DOM2 events MUST behave as if specified
   by qnames; the exact method is implementation-defined

   MB: ok

   SM: where in spec to put comment?
   ... think needs to be in definition of event attribute

   RM: agree - in Events part of spec

   <alessio> +1

   SM: listener elements and DOM3 Event Mutation
   ... does DOM3 have all interfaces we are exposing? all subjects in
   handler module and bubbling stuff - default target, etc. -- 4
   potential phases in DOM2 - have to clarify situation vis a vis DOM3
   ... phases is ok -- we define what each term means in the spec

   MB: one level up events are ok

   SM: others of interests: DispatchEvents, etc. - those are our
   definitions; style propagation and prevent default already in DOM2

   MB: on DOM3 question, are they still considering using qnames?

   RM: yes, although faction oppose

   SM: interestingly, the last draft of DOM3 Events, from 2007, doesn't
   contain term qname
   ... does have NamespaceURI as attribute
   ... don't use qualified name either

   <ShaneM>
   http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Events/events.html#Events-Event

   SM: events interface in DOM3 defines addEventListener and
   addEventListenerNS - that is interesting and shows way towards
   mapping; if interface like this, no mapping needed, if not, know what
   to do

   MB: by spliting namespace out into seperate property and not using
   qnames, trying to ensure baackwards compatibility -- use local name,
   may not be namespace present
   ... should we be doing the same

   SM: not needed for our users

   MB: assuming that using qnames is more convenient than using 2
   attributes, one with namespace and one with type

   SM: namespace prefix going may be used hundreds of times -- burden on
   author
   ... foo:bar implies a namespace

   MB: does imply that alogrithm foo:bar becoming foo_bar is wrong; in
   DOM2 becomes just bar
   ... initEvent method receives bar; if eventsNS receive bar plus the
   foo
   ... note needs to state: be careful, if use DOM2 foo will be ignorned
   and foo:bar and foo_bar will map to same event

   SM: approach might work, but could also say - if ontop of DOM2, should
   treat foo:bar and bar identically

   MB: 2 methods: one with namespace property and one without

   SM: latest editor's draft?
   ... define spec on our side that allows our constituents to write
   applications; no idea what underlying implementation is

   RM: DOMHasFeature will tell you that

   SM: XML Events 2 not scripting, but declarative through use of
   handlers
   ... can't serve diff documents depending upon underlying document type
   -- at least, i wouldn't want to

   MB: what is use of qnames -- in local files, defining my events, don't
   need qnames; become useful when people write specs xf:done

   SM: good point;

   MB: author has control of document

   SM: sometimes

   MB: use qualified names with multiple markup

   SM: if constituency is basic author, not going to use qnames for own
   events

   RM: this is language-designer concern only?

   SM: do we want to tell users "don't use qnames for your own defined
   events"
   ... "If you use qualified names, in some implementations, they may
   collide"

   MB: not convinced there is a perfect solution to this; what is it that
   DOM3 event designers seeing when took this approach; AJAX library
   fires event when initialized and make dojo:done - can i register that?
   ... perhaps dojo:done should be different that yahoo:done

   RM: how do we move forward? next steps?

   MB: need to ascertain from DOM what were thinking - can attach event
   with one technique and can fire event with another
   ... what is effect we are attempting to achieve
   ... at script level could register event using AddEventListenerNS
   ... also generic AddEventListener - if author writes DOM2 code to
   register event, another author may write a DOM3 firing of event using
   different methods; may be why said xyz_bar same as foo:bar
   ... doesn't bring us any closer to next step, though...

   RM: perhaps have to step back and ask question: "Do we think we should
   accomodate DOM2 events or move forward and use DOM3 events"
   ... should we tie ourselves to DOM3?

   MB: i would no, interim step here -- XForms uses DOM2 events, ended up
   with if and for which migrated to XML Events
   ... reason for qnames addition, was to support future when DOM3
   finalized; follow evolution of DOM2 events into DOM3 -- if can't
   figure out solution, should leave out qnames for now -- would not want
   to be tied to DOM3 Events because may not be done for 4 years

   RM: other thoughts?

   SM: can go back to DOM2 Events; could potentially provide guidance -
   intent to support qnames via DOM3 Events in future, and devs might
   want to keep that in mind
   ... unfortunate Steven not here; would like to hear his input before
   make decision

   <alessio> true

   RM: thinking about the issues won't harm us, only benefit us
   ... soften question about DOM3 - should support DOM3, but requiring
   DOM3 different; capable of supporting DOM3 in compatability mode from
   earlier versions
   ... add new features from capability point of view; can support some
   DOM3 features when deployed

   SM: like that story-line -- trying to get XML Events 2 deployed now

   RM: entire WG should take time to review this -- anyone want to write
   up proposal and send to mailing list to capture the position we
   reached today, then revisit at call in 2 week's time

   [complete silence]

   RM: anyone want to try and summarize where we just go to?

   SM: can do in an email

   RM: thanks, shane

Upcoming Calls

   RM: next week is thanksgiving - will there be enough attendees?

   SM: available

   TH: available

   AC: yes

   MB: no

   GJR: yes

   <alessio> :)

   RM: i will - SP has actions to clear before he takes off in december -
   will ask him to clear as much as can before december
   ... leave decision on DOM2 and DOM3 to meeting 2 weeks from today -
   Mark will you be here?

   MB: no, unavailable

   <ShaneM> ACTION: Shane to write a quick summary of the position w.r.t.
   DOM2 vs. DOM3 in XML Events 2 [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action04]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Write a quick summary of the position
   w.r.t. DOM2 vs. DOM3 in XML Events 2 [on Shane McCarron - due
   2008-11-26].

   RM: can you make sure you get your views and opinions onto emailing
   list so can make decision

   MB: yes

Roadmap for XHTML2

   RM: gregory been pushing; believe agreed should get new draft out;
   what were we waiting for

   SM: editing cycles

   RM: like to get to LC by end of first quarter of next year?

   SM: a year ago was next public draft would be LC --

   RM: think at june f2f decided to publish public draft

   SM: need to get to it

   RM: when can we get a draft out? by moritorium - next month

   SM: moritorium?

   RM: normally one during holiday period
   ... can we get another draft by 2 weeks

   SM: everything else done, so have more time to work on XHTML2 and XML
   Events

   RM: will try and draft a roadmap for XHTML2 that we can then discuss
   as to its reasonableness at next week's call

   <scribe> ACTION: Roland - draft roadmap for XHTML2 to discuss
   reasonableness at next call [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action05]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - - draft roadmap for XHTML2 to discuss
   reasonableness at next call [on Roland Merrick - due 2008-11-26].

   XHTML Mime

   SM: addressed all of opera's issues; ready to go
   ... have a free weekend, so expect to get work done

Lingering Items

   RM: PERs for 1.1 (dependent upon having new note on mime); continue
   with modularization

   SM: all done -- PERs ready - just need date; depends on whether can
   get CR stuff in and if can do anything when steven gone for a month

   RM: i will discuss PERs with steven

   SM: happy to have meeting with RM and SP to come up with work plan for
   December

Action Item Review

   SM: action 4 - replying to forms content on access module

   <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/4

   SM: replied formally to TAG on 18 October 2008; not acknowledged;
   think can close with a "no response"

   RM: MarkB, could you bring this up in XForms call?

   <scribe> ACTION: Mark - ask XForms about Access Module concerns
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action06]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - - ask XForms about Access Module
   concerns [on Mark Birbeck - due 2008-11-26].

   <ShaneM>
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2008Oct/0011.html

   SM: may not have been responded because didn't submit LC to right list
   - sent to www-html not to our either of public lists
   ... Mark, please ask them to look at the post referenced above
   ... with respect to action 4 will put in link to related email, but
   think should close

   RM: agree - action was to reply

   TH: issue on roadmap - 4 different types of list comment

   RM: can we clear in 5 minutes

   TH: initial reaction is to suggest that we say "thank you for your
   opinion, but we don't agree with you" don't think should go from
   specific set of elements to generic set of elements

   RM: last week we said we had 4; feeling was 3 is good, but is NL
   necessary

   TH: need more, not less
   ... NL is a generic list of links with specific semantics which UL
   doesn't have

   RM: could use any of other 3 list types with role="navigation"

   SM: NL implies certain behavior and certain semantics about content;
   NL implies orderedness that UL does not, and OL is inappropriate
   construct for navigation

   GJR: plus 1 on keeping NL

   <_alessio> +1 too

   MB: don't like NL -- my problem is why stop at NL, why not video list
   -- ability to turn anything into hyperlink in XHTML2 hard to figure
   out the semantics;
   ... understand why added NL, but think that role made superfluous

   TH: semantics, traditionally, has been placed in element type name;
   UL, OL, DL, and generic list with role="navigation"

   MB: what is generic list?

   SM: not thinking of adding generic list

   MB: either use semantics to clarify lists (people tend to use @class
   to do that)

   <Roland_> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-nav-element

   RM: HTML5 dealt with this with nav element

   TH: like to see "inline list", but need to look at our philosophy;
   strictly speaking could end up with 1 element and 3 attributes; big
   step away from precedent

   MB: guiding prinicple of XHTML2 is "less is more" -- do talk about not
   having just DIVs and SPANs, but ensuring hooks in language so that
   people can add own semantics - that's what @role introduced;

   TH: can extend as needed in XHTML M12n framework - extend XHTML via
   namespaces

   <_alessio> I'm not against nl but I see some warnings for nested lists

   MB: you are saying that preferred extension method should be elements;
   have to write special module for extension

   <_alessio> for example what about an unordered list with his
   role="navigation" inside an nl?

   MB: other method is use attributes and allow identifier in there -
   with role and RDFa used RDF identifiers or URIs to merge with semantic
   web

   GJR: there are XML derived modules for shipping addresses and such

   <ShaneM> sorry - I have to run

   RM: need to examine HTML5 additions

   <_alessio> agree

   <markbirbeck> bye...have to go to XForms call

   RM: good to document philosophy behind XHTML2

   GJR: good place to start is verbiage in spec

   TH: can't avoid what authors doing

   RM: need to develop policy
   ... should spend time thinking about a policy to apply would be useful
   ... prefer do on overall approach on how we deal with issues instead
   of one-off solutions and ad hoc solutions

   <_alessio> bye! :)

   s/good place to start is with the extant Introduction/good place to
   start is with the extant Introduction
   (http:\/\/www.w3.org\/MarkUp\/2007\/ED-xhtml2-20071024\/introduction.h
   tml#s_intro_whatisxhtml2)

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Mark - ask XForms about Access Module concerns [recorded
   in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action06]
   [NEW] ACTION: Roland - draft roadmap for XHTML2 to discuss
   reasonableness at next call [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action05]
   [NEW] ACTION: Shane to update XML Events 2 draft so it has a diff mark
   to previous public working draft AND to the previous recommendation
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: Shane to write a quick summary of the position w.r.t.
   DOM2 vs. DOM3 in XML Events 2 [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action04]
   [NEW] ACTION: Steven - request CR transition for Access Module
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: Steven - request CR Transition for Role Module [recorded
   in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 16:34:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:50 GMT