- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:56:47 +0000
- To: public-xhtml2@w3.org
aloha, all!
minutes from today's XHTML2 Working Group Teleconference can be
found as hypertext at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/12/03-xhtml-minutes.html
and as an IRC log at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/12/03-xhtml-irc
and as plain text following my signature; as usual, any errors,
omissions, mis-attributions, clarifications and the like should be
logged by replying to this announcement on-list...
gregory.
_________________________________________________________________
- DRAFT -
XHTML2 Working Group Teleconference
03 Dec 2008
Agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Dec/0001.html
See also:
* IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2008/12/03-xhtml-irc
* Previous Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2008/11/26-xhtml-minutes.html
* Agenda Planning Tracker: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/agenda
Attendees
Present
Gregory_Rosmaita, Roland, ShaneM, Markus_Gylling, Alessio
Tina_on_IRC
Regrets
Mark_Birbeck, Steven
Chair
Roland_Merrick
Scribe
Gregory_Rosmaita
Contents
* Topics
1. Announcements, News, Hot Topics, Agenda Review
2. Oustanding Actions -
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/open
3. Access Module
4. XML Events 2: status?
5. XHTML MIME type: Status?
6. Notes from Tina on XHTML Mime
7. XHTML2
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
Announcements, News, Hot Topics, Agenda Review
Agenda Planning Tracker: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/agenda
<ShaneM> having difficulties with headset
RM: brief update on CURIE syntax - had transition call yesterday, got
ok to transition, still paperwork to be done, should move forward
Oustanding Actions - http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/open
RM: XML Events 2 haven't done; DOM discussed yesterday - will include
action 40 in status update for HTC
... features document?
SM: none are completed unless marked "pending review"
RM: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/11 - policy statement on
migration and inclusion
SM: started to do, but could decide where to put
RM: isn't there another action for that
... close action 11
... http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/18 - changes in Mime
document
... substantive note from Tina -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0032.html
SM: would rather do when tina here
RM: if no tina at meeting, please respond on-list
... action 18 should be closed
... http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/33 - should be closed
RESOLUTION: Actions 11, 13 and 18 are closed
RM: action 13 might be worth some discussion
SM: delegated it; will ping and update
RM: action 15 - not have separate implements module - fold into XHTML2
- is that correct?
SM: made note to that effect in action
... leave action until finished
RM: action item from GJR -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Dec/0000.html
GJR: pf said: "The word "similar" was inserted to satisfy general
requirements for HTML processing, since the Role module includes
low-level processing specifics, which can't be ported to HTML5;
therefore, in order to enable ARIA in HTML5 it is necessary to define
low-level DOM parsing whilst still accepting same content, with same
accessibility result. Of course, if one is using XHTML2 to author a
document, then that author would and SHOULD use the Role Module
RM: all ARIA attributes can be used without prefix; defined for us and
in XHTML vocab
... for ARIA terms there is no namespaced vocabulary
GJR: agree with RM, think that PF punted
SM: don't know what is going to be in HTML5
GJR: HTML5 e.t.a. is 2012 at earliest
RM: carry on and ignore -- given WAI everything asked for; shouldn't
waste our cycles on this
... de facto implementation of HTML5 by developers
... happy to consider item complete
<mib_jqd0sf> ops
SM: during LC review, can submit formal objection because should be
using Role attribute PF helped define
GJR: would support that
RM: any other actions finished?
Access Module
RM: waiting for comments
GJR: i18n issues?
<Tina> I'll send my comments on the ACCESS module by Monday
SM: comment from forms; Steven brought up in Forms WG - John Boyer
(chair) supposed to send us note; can live with it if multiple IDs in
XForms and XHTML2 synced; thing XForms comment closed
RM: can close XForms comment
... action 35 is complete
SM: everything regards Access closed out; implementation report and
disposition of comments all ready; need to wait until CURIEs reaches
CR for this to reach CR because references CURIE
RM: same with Role?
SM: yes, not certain if SP has sent in transition request for the 3
RM: haven't seen them
... resolved to request CR Transition
[http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-xhtml-minutes.html#item06]
XML Events 2: status?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts/#xml-events2
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0018.html
RM: discussed last week - going back to DOM2 - have to inspect DOM2
spec - anyone done that?
SM: no
GJR: no
XHTML MIME type: Status?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts/#xhtmlmime
RM: need to get done for XHTML 1.0 SE and 1.1 PER will point to that
SM: issue: XML 1.0 Fifth Edition became a rec yesterday
... changes rules / definition of ID - changes what chars are legal in
ID; historically have just transitioned to current version of XML (any
recs we put out use current XML edition), but what are rammifications
of changing @id to make more inclusive - with our documents, some
point to fourth edition, some to fifth
RM: reads errata for fourth edition
<mgylling> Before the fifth edition, XML 1.0 was explicitly based on
Unicode 2.0. As of the fifth edition, it is based on Unicode 5.0.0 or
later. This effectively allows not only characters used today, but
also characters that will be used tomorrow.
RM: due to unicode changes?
SM: previously malformed documents now ok; invalid documents now valid
-- don't understand
RM: main characters has changed
<mgylling> http://blog.jclark.com/2008/10/xml-10-5th-edition.html
MG: there is a blog entry from James Clark explaining why he thinks
fifth edition broken - was controversial
SM: jame's blog is exactly what i thought/concluded
... good news (sort of) - always made dated references to 1.0
(reference edition numbers); we are dependent upon namespaces, and
they are not referenced
... don't understand rammifications, but they keep me awake at night
RM: if stay with Fourth Edition, and say that those in Fifth Edition
are ok, but a SUB-SET of those in Fourth Edition
SM: hope change is forward compatible
RM: should leave the pointer alone for XML Fourth Edition
... if get through PR review and asked why not Fifth, we say "prove to
us won't cause problems"
SM: reasonable
GJR: plus 1
<alessio> +1
RM: keep status quo: publish our specs pointing to XML 1.0 Fourth
Edition, until becomes an issue, if becomes and issue
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0018.html
<Roland>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0032.html
SM: major change is unicode related
Notes from Tina on XHTML Mime
RM: same mistakes i had found
SM: fixed broken internal links
... compatibility guidelines: i know what problem i was trying to
solve with sentence in question: remind validation people at W3C that
shouldn't validate against this
RM: could be useful to remind of constraints
<alessio> for tina and all... I write a note (in italian) on IWA
Italy's blog related to tina's article:
http://blog.iwa.it/varie/xhtml-basta-con-la-mitologia/
SM: don't like suggested wording: is a non-sequitor
... "TOPIC: XHTML MIME type: Status?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts/#xhtmlmime
Tina's comment: ""It contains no absolute requirements, and should
NEVER be used as
the basis for creating conformance nor validation rules of any sort.
Period.""
RM: constraint over and above language definition; could write style
guide
... replace paragraph with something less dogmatic
SM: accept suggestion for example 3 - don't use P
RM: "A.4. Embedded Style Sheets and Scripts
... didn't we originally say to avoid inline style and scripts?
SM: she's attempting to make more assertive, i believe
... trying to explain why suggested trick for embedding works
... we can explain that
RM: make clear that is explanation; don't have to if don't want to
SM: A.5 - generic advice; i think has to do with XML versus HTML
"This sounds like generic advice for writing markup, rather then
something relevant to the differences between XHTML and HTML. I could
be mistaken and would welcome pointers to the relevant parts of the
specifications if so."
RM: might be useful if each of these assertions in A.5 are linked
SM: they are
RM: don't show in ToC
SM: no don't show in ToC
RM: linebreak attribute values
SM: in XML attribute values are ...
MG: whitespace neutralized?
SM: yes
RM: isn't that part of rationale? ensure on single line isn't bad
advice
SM: don't remember why did in first place - tina wants rationale -
thought had to do with whitespace normalization
<mgylling> If the attribute type is not CDATA, then the XML processor
MUST further process the normalized attribute value by discarding any
leading and trailing space (#x20) characters, and by replacing
sequences of space (#x20) characters by a single space (#x20)
character.
MG: section 3.3.3 of XML spec
... depends on type of attribute; if not CDATA discusses discarding
leading and trailing space
RM: option for collapse as well?
MG: 3.3.3 says replace XML def of whitespace by single space only;
linebreaks "normalized" to single space, leading or trailing
SM: section 2.1.1 on end of line handling
... end of lines normalized even if inside attribute value
... turns linefeeds into spaces
RM: read section 3.3.3 and 2.1.1 and best to avoid those situations
since don't know what non-XML parsers would do
... A.11 - "Perhaps an example showing how to convert to lower case
before checking would help clarify this for some people?"
SM: do ensure that attribute names ... are case insensitive
... can show people how to call to lower
RM: ok
SM: A.25 - i know answer and will send it to her
... A.26. - "to justify removing accessiblity feature..." -- we aren't
removing, we are telling people not to do it -- same problem as
NOSCRIPT
RM: deal with NOSCRIPT in whatever answer you send to tina
SM: Example Document concerns: good point about style element (no bad
stuff to escape) - rather than remove CDATA markers, should put bad
stuff in
... final comment - grouping selector -
RM: because HTML and BODY elements are identical, can define style
once using "html,body { }"
<Roland> html, body {background-color: #e4e5e9; }
RM: list, not heirarchy
SM: right
... have bunch of changes to make - between last publication and now,
pub rules have changed for Notes - additional reqs on Note we need to
satisfy; will make process changes along with changes stemming from
tina and our discussion of it
RM: use of ABBR or ACRONYM
GJR: have proposed INIT (initialism)
SM: will fold in WG's response to Tina's comments into Mime today
along with other pub-related stuff
XHTML2
RM: question on "do we need nl?" - motivation, wanted navigation, but
maybe use "nav" as a section - more than list - complete block, like a
section
GJR: similar to Role/ARIA concept of "nav"
RM: yes, big major area, not just detail, but block of navigational
options
... look at way NAV is defined when return to question:
... would nav obviate need for NL via specialized container
SM: had action to send out conversation starter
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0015.html
RM: ol role="nav" versus nl - will reply and through into mix that
this is bigger question: NAV as structural element; will kick off
conversation by replying to shane's note
<Tina> I have a half-finished reply to Shane's conversation starter
SM: point i was trying to make is have diff mechanisms to satisfy diff
needs; should think about needs
GJR: positive "yes!" reaction to shane's post
ADJOURN
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 15:57:30 UTC