Chair

Steven: Roland Merrick of IBM will be joining me as co-chair; he has a lot of experience in the Forms WG, and is very enthusiastic about joining us. He has an existing call at this time, so has some reorganization to do.

Roadmap

Here is the one from the last WG http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml-roadmap/

Here is the latest one: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/XHTML2-WG-charter

Shane: There is a mismatch between the documents section and the milestones

Steven: All the more reason to update the roadmap document

Mark: It looks like the documents section is OK, only the milestones are missing some

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to update the roadmap document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]

Wiki/Blog

Steven: Do we think this is a good idea?
... example: http://www.w3.org/International/

Shane: It's a good idea

<scribe> ACTION: Steven investigate starting a blog and wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]

Vote on last call for Role and Access

Steven: I saw this as an action from last week

Shane: The final version of role is not ready, sorry

Tina: I had an action item to review the role document
... I'm not convinced we need it
... I don't like representing semantics in attributes rather than elements

Steven: But it offers extensibility in semantics without having to constantly revise the language

Tina: I'm worried that people will create semantics with <div role=...

Steven: Agreed we have to talk about best practices

Rich: You can't stop people doing the wrong thing; at least we now have a way to extract the real semantics, rather than having to guess

Steven: The nice thing that this offers is a link to the semantic web way of defining semantics

Tina: For people who don't even understand h1, rdf doesn't give them any value

Mark: I think you are missing the point
... you don't have to understand rdf
... there are values you can use
... so we have the best of both worlds: a predefined list, and hooks into rdf which makes it extensible for the future.

Tina: I'm worried that people will add semantics with role
... if someone makes up their own semantics, there is no way to extract the real meaning

Steven: Yes there is! That's the nice thing about semweb tools: you can define the relationship between different semantics ('ontologies')

Rich: The nice thing about this approach is that you don't need 'skip to' links for instance, and the browser still offers a shortcut to the main content

Steven: Are you going to do a review, or was this it Tina?

Tina: The document is fine, I'm just worried about the principle.

Name and namespace

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Jun/0018.html

Shane: You know my opinion; they should not call it XHTML unless they use modularization

Tina: There are two markup languages, HTML and XHTML. I'm not sure that HTLM5 is even HTML, but that is a different discussion

Rich: I'm worried about the confusion. I have no problems with HTML5/xml or so
... but not XHTML5

Mark: I don't see why they need two names. They have HTML5, with two serializations. No need for two names

Tina: I agree with the problem of confusion
... I've already seen it amongst developers.

Rich: All existing XHTMLs have been modular, and HTML5 is not. It's a mess.

Yam: It doesn't make any sense for them to produce something called XHTML5

RESOLUTION: We agree that the HTML WG should not use the XHTML name to refer to their XML serialization.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Jun/0017.html

Steven: And now the namespace
... we were criticised in the past for having a different namespace, and therefore we changed it back (correctly in my view)

<ShaneM> I concur.

Rich: I think HTML5 is not backwards compatible

Tina: Agreed, especially with elements changing meaning

Steven: I believe that XHTML2 is more backwards compatible than HTML5, and I plan to make a document comparing them to demonstrate it.

Rich: If the browser manufacturers are going to have to make all these changes for audio, video, canvas and so on, what's the problem with a new namespace?

Steven: Good point

URL is overspecified

Steven: If I understand the point of view being expressed, just because URLs go over the wire in ASCII, there is no reason to demand the URL in the XHTML source to be ASCII; we can allow the international form of domain names etc in the source, and require the browser to do the conversion to ASCII

Yam: Quite agree

Mark: Sounds like a good idea

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to get advice from I18N group about international form of URIs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]