See also: IRC log
<markbirbeck> ah :)
<markbirbeck> Trying to find the UK one.
<markbirbeck> ta
<scribe> Scribe: Steven
Roland: I work for IBM UK
... in the past worked on XForms
... and device independence
... now back to W3C to co-chair this group, and more interesting work
Steven: A new company is joining
... a Japanese company
(machine running slowly, sorry)
scribe: Mitsue-links Co Ltd
Steven: Two new questionnaires
... one for forthcoming calls
... one for FtF
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Jun/0027.html
Shane: I thought it was due a week from
today
... I will do it this week
Steven: I will send an apology that we are running late
Steven: There are a few possibilities. I've
been talking to vcarious people round W3C
... b2evolution, moinmoin. Mediawiki may be installed sometime soon
Roland: Moinmoin is OK
Shane: We could restyle it, if we don't like the style
Roland: There might be a danger in being the first to use a new system
<scribe> ACTION: Steven request a moinmoin instance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/04-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]
Steven: Rich sent this message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Jul/0001.html
Shane: The small issue is what we want to say about an access element that doesn't specify a key attribute
Steven: The UA is allowed to override the key anyway, so binding a key when it is not specified should be fine
Roland: Some UAs will bind to softkeys
Steven: And UAs will likely bind well-knoiw
roles to standard keys
... So I think we agree with Rich's comment
Shane: There are two optional attributes as
well, targetrole and targetid.
... If neither is specified, what does it mean?
... It could mean that the current focus point is the place where the event
is raised
... (no use case for that though)
... or say "undefined" or "nothing happens".
... Any opinions?
Roland: I wouldn't like it to be undefined.
Steven: Me neither
Shane: Or we could require one to be
specified
... but we couldn't validate that
Roland: Relax NG could
Shane: But not the W3C validator
Steven: True, but that shouldn't drive our design
Shane: So what do we think?
... It could be useful to be able to raise an event without specifying
target
Steven: But it would be just as easy by saying what the target is
Shane: Well, there is the focus issue
... does raising a DOMActivate also change the focus?
Mark: I think it should get focus as well
Shane: So do I
Steven: Why do you care?
Shane: Well, if the link goes to another window
Mark: It depends on how you interpret
DOMActivate
... I think DOM2 Events is too vague to be sure whether the control has focus
already
... Is DOMACtivate a notification or an action?
Steven: But you can cancel a DOMActivate
... which stops default processing
Roland: DOMFocusIn is not cancellable on the
other hand
... DOMFocusIn is not cancellable on the other hand
... which suggests that you can't use DOMFocusIn to set focus
... it is only notification that it has happenend
Shane: I noticed that; the only alternative is 'focus', but that is only valid on a small subset of elements
"This event is valid for the following elements: LABEL, INPUT, SELECT, TEXTAREA, and BUTTON"
Mark: The only two use cases we know of are "Give focus" and "Give focus and activate"
Steven: So maybe "raise" is too general
... maybe we should just say those two things
... or say that focus is always given, and then 'raise' gives an additional
optional event
Mark: Or an attribute that is default giving
focus, and allows you to specify activations
... the default behaviour for role and id is surely different
... for role it is always focus
... but for id it doesn't have to
Shane: I don't want to special case it
... Shouldn't targetid be a list?
Mark: Cute
Shane: Would it be the next id in the list, or the next id in the list in document sequence?
Mark: So tab gets you onto a route now (with next focus) and this way any key could put you on a route
Shane: Shall I spec it up?
Steven: Send it to the list, I wouldn't want to add it to the spec before Rich has seen it
Shane: I think we agreed that an unsepcified key will then be assigned by the UA, and you must either specify a targetid or a targetrole
Steven: Yes
... Out of time. Let's talk longdesc next week (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2007Jul/thread.html#msg0)
... since we have a rather good solution already
Roland: 3.1.1 says something about id attribute; does that include xml:id
Steven: We ought to accomodate xml:id; use whatever XML uses to describe the id-ness of an element, and not restrict it to id attributes
s/tweo/two/
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/element/focus point/ Succeeded: s/ he / the / Succeeded: s/SH/Sh/ Succeeded: s/longdes/longdesc/ Succeeded: s/Topics:/Topic:/ FAILED: s/tweo/two/ Succeeded: s/Tweo/Two/ Found Scribe: Steven Inferring ScribeNick: Steven Default Present: +0138687aaaa, Steven, Roland_, Yamx, ShaneM, +1.208.761.aabb, markbirbeck Present: +0138687aaaa Steven Roland_ Yamx ShaneM +1.208.761.aabb markbirbeck Regrets: Rich Alessio Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Jul/0002 Got date from IRC log name: 4 Jul 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/07/04-xhtml-minutes.html People with action items: steven[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]