W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > February 2009

[XHTML] minutes: 2009-02-19 Weekly Telecon [draft]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:47:28 +0000
To: public-xhtml2@w3.org
Message-Id: <20090218154538.M10466@hicom.net>

minutes from the 18 February 2009 XHTML2 Working Group Teleconference
are available as hypertext at:


as an IRC log at:


and as plain text following my signature -- as usual, please log any 
corrections, clarifications, omissions, mis-attributions, and the 
like by replying-to this announcement on-list...

note, as well, that immediately following today's teleconference, 
shane posted a new XHTML 1.0 PER draft:



                                   - DRAFT -

                      XHTML2 Working Group Teleconference

18 Feb 2009

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2009Feb/0033

   See also: IRC log - http://www.w3.org/2009/02/18-xhtml-irc


          Gregory_Rosmaita, McCarron, Steven, mgylling, Alessio

          Roland, MarkB




     * Topics
         1. News, Notes & Agenda Additions
         2. RDFa in HTML5
         3. XHTML 1.0 PER
         4. Burning Issues
     * Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 18 February 2009

   <scribe> Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita

   <scribe> ScribeNick: oedipus

   previous: http://www.w3.org/2009/02/11-xhtml-minutes.html

News, Notes & Agenda Additions

   SP: sorry sent out agenda late;

   GJR: action item update - http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/49
   ... we voting on sending ARIA 1.0 to last call today
   ... MCooper will provide Shane with updated info

   SP: update at last call? should it not express only what is in rec?

   SM: doesn't
   ... reflects what is in ARIA WD, needs to be updated to conform

   SP: ok, fair enough
   ... action item - send PER transition request -- done; will keep my
   eye on it; should hear within a week
   ... action to write intro to XHTML2

   <Steven> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml2.html

   SP: created very draf first version
   ... a) very early draft; b) in "telegram" style - listed what needs to
   be explained and intent of each section; sections need populating;
   comments on structure welcome
   ... composed of lots of pieces; have to check RDFa example for right
   triples; bit about XFrames that probably needs to be cut, but is
   placeholder until we decide what to do about XFrames; sketched out
   XForms section
   ... any comments welcome

   GJR: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/50 is still open (didn't
   finish - hope to do so today)



   SP: word level for INS and DEL - normal to do DEL on false plural -
   dogs = dog<DEL>s</DEL>

   GJR: best practice, should point out at least the dangers of using
   internal INS and DEL for rendering especially alternate rendering
   ... no, i still need to finish compiling the document
   ... will email list when ready to review

   SP: voting on going to last call

   GJR: correct
   ... plan is to get through as soon as possible -- 3 weeks from date of
   announcement, probably a week from friday

   latest ARIA editor's draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria

   <ShaneM> I suspect a 3 week last call is a little naive - the rest of
   the membership needs to read the doc.


   <ShaneM> Off topic: quote of the day (from Mark Birbeck):

   <ShaneM> There are two aspects to this debate. Some people want RDFa
   to be added to HTML5, and that browsers do something with it. I'd love
   to see that too, but then I'd also like to solve world hunger, and
   teach the world to sing.


   SP: amazed at how 1 thread generated so much discussion
   ... Manu reported back from conference support and interest in RDFa;
   discussion devolved into HTML5 versus RDFa argument
   ... quote of the day right on topic!
   ... discussion is one i had last year at TPAC when i attended HTML WG
   to discuss RDFa and HTML5; Henri Sivonen still singing the same song
   against RDFa -- counter arguments to use of RDFa is extensibility,
   namespacing, and control attributes won't be removed from DOM when
   document parsed, so RDFa will just work; only problem is validation,
   and HTML5 doesn't have a validation story


   SM: generic validation - http://validator.nu
   ... thread traffic today - HS' argument interesting; HTML5 does remove
   attributes from info stack

   SP: which ones?

   SM: anyone that is in xmlns

   SP: how plan to declare version of HTML5

   SM: are no versions

   SP: either this is the last HTML ever, or need to solve problem
   ... at some point in future going to have to have another iteration of
   HTML which will need to be validated; could then have profile to
   validate HTML5 + RDFa

   SM: yesterday's quote of the day from TAG discussion on versioning;
   HTML5 Issue 41 - precludes extensibility in HTML5

   <ShaneM> David Orchard said: This is also directly related to HTML5 WG
   issue 41, which is that HTML5 currently precludes support for
   distributed extensibility.

   SM: source david orchard

   GJR: no support for my "role for HTML5" proposal -

   SM: problem is don't want distributed extensibility - want a
   locked-down developer-centric language with strict processing

   SP: done our best to make XHTML markup usable by everyone

   <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say sam ruby has action to discuss
   HTML5 and XHTML alignment - Janina Sajka, co-chair of PF should be at

   SP: haven't received request from Sam


   SP: good approach

   GJR: would like Janina Sajka to be included in meeting

   <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say HTML5 new PWD pushed without
   consultation with WG



   SP: objection from DanC about 1.0 PER

   <Steven> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xhtml1-20081121/

   SP: DanC stated not enough time for community review


   SM: make sure reviewing right draft of Media Types (16 January 2009)

   SP: reference from normative section to the document

   "Many people want to use XHTML to author their web pages, but are
   confused about the best ways to deliver those pages in such a way that
   they will be processed correctly by various user agents. This Note
   contains suggestions about how to format XHTML to ensure it is
   maximally portable, and how to deliver XHTML to various user agents -
   even those that do not yet support XHTML natively. This document is
   intended to be used by document authors who want to use XHTM

   SP: complaint is in reference to Section 5

   SM: think previous REC had same pointer -- pointed to appendix C, now
   points to Media Types

   SP: was concern about a normative section pointed to from an
   informative section
   ... what is normative about Section 5?

   SM: nothing

   SP: can we mark that "This section is informative"?
   ... section 5 should be non-normative, and provide pointer to January
   2009 draft
   ... definitely have had opportunity to review

   <Steven> I presented it to the HCG

   RESOLUTION: reply to DanC's comments on PER of XHTML 1.0 to state that
   Section 5 (of XHTML 1.0 PER) is non-normative and provide pointer to
   16 January 2006 draft of XHTML Media Types - Second Edition

Burning Issues

   SP: discussion of XHTML2 and HTML5 combined?
   ... at Forms f2f, realized don't have dates for virtual face2face for
   XHTML2 WG -- do we want to plan a longer session (day, day and a half)
   to work on XHTML2 draft
   ... need Roland to set but should start thinking about timing

   AC: agree


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 15:54:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:30:31 UTC