Weekly XHTML2 WG Teleconference -- 14 Nov 2007

<Roland> questionaire is at: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/32107/XHTML2calltime/

<Tina> Well - an hour earlier than the usual 4pm /was/ an hour ago. I can't call out at the moment.

<markbirbeck> Note that I took the minutes last time. :)

<markbirbeck> One hour later for Japan, now one hour earlier for us. :)

<markbirbeck> (now I mean, not for future calls)

<ShaneM> what time is it UTC now? Losing my mind

<Roland> this week the call takes place at 15:00-15:59UTC

<Steven> It was proposed that we make the call an hour earlier, but didn't resolve to do that

<Steven> But I've made the questionnaire to make sure everyone gets to speak

<Steven> scribenick: oedipus

SP: apologies for time confusion -- only proposed to make call an hour earlier -- questionnaire about telecon times (doubt whether will be able to change in a week's time) - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Oct/0115
... thank you yam, thank you shane
... quick review of F2F
... went rather well; large amount of work done, came out with good idea of how to move in future, especially in regards HTML5; if position ourselves as authoring format first, should be no grounds for complaint
... until not very long ago (in cosmic time) could use diff namespace from XHTML1 -- a lot of complaints received; last f2f before rechartering, resolved to change NS back to XHTML1
... option: change back to xhtml2 NS that we used to use; may help relations with HTML WG

<Tina> I am, at the moment, unable to call in. There's no reception where I am. However, I'd like to add to that, ref. the agenda and HTML 5: it's not this WGs job to decide on a name for the serialisation of HTML 5. It is, however, /this/ group's job to work with XHTML - that name is not one the HTML WG can use in the future.

Shane: why don't they get out of our NS? we were there first

SP: don't think will ever do that; DanC doesn't seem to think a big deal that we have same NS; i thought chairs' position would be "have to solve this problem" -- xhtml1 NS shared by HTML/XHTML

Shane: write access to NS is this WG's purview

Shane: like to discuss in context of modularization -- haven't gotten impression that are heading in same direction; why then change NS?

SP: largely agree; bear in mind for future discussions

Roland: by thursday, believed doing something separate from HTML5; ended up the week comfortable and happy with situation

SP: was on an up at end of week; lot of people approached with support for XHTML2; even someone who might join WG
... another point - on TP day, was panel about HTML5 versus XHTML2 -- watching IRC channel, common question was "why isn't steven p up there?" -- think that worked in our favor; presenters Anne Van Kestren, HenriS, RichS and AlG

Mark: invited at last minute, but was in berlin; still don't understand why SP not on panel

SP: no chairs and no team members on panel
... talked with public -- not case of either or -- 2 WGs doing quite different things
... a lot of strategy discussion on day 1
... day 2 - discussed role and publications and WG's roadmap -- updated roadmap (separate agenda item)
... came out on an up note -- good meeting internally and externally; have good arguments for why need for XHTML2 as well as HTML5

Future F2F Meetings

SP: 2 things: uncoupled from Forms WG (have always met in same forum in same week); second, in attempt to get more attendance, reduced number of meetings from 4 to 3 a year
... week in february, week in june, tech plenary next year
... alessio offered to host in Venice next february --
... 16th or 17th june in northeastern U.S. -- shane, is there possibility of you hosting?

Shane: not anywhere near northeast
... in dead-center fly-over america

SP: would holding meeting in US make more likely could attend?

Shane: absolutely

SP: W3C could host in Boston or Google in NYC, but could also move mountain to Shane
... tech plenary in south of France
... comments?

scribe's note: general agreement/no dissent

Roadmap

<Steven> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml-roadmap/

SP: interesting stuff under "New and Continuing" (consult URI above)
... filled in a lot of data and updated a lot of dates; access module to go to first draft shortly and LC in february; same for XFrames and XML Events 2
... major highlights/benchmarks
... have to decide to put XHTML Role out in new draft soon; draft mostly there

Roland: review of Access Module, XFrames and XML Events 2

SP: at moment, difficult to get calls with 3 other people; one scheduled for tonight was cancelled; bottleneck is getting transition cores assigned; still in negotiation; within a week, should be clearer;
... for XForms 1.1

Roland: don't need to do for XML Events 2; Access Module, need to write up draft based on recent changes; transition for modularization is the big one to get out of way

SP: troublesome scheduling, but in queue, and will happen

Roland: Access Module draft ready for first public working draft?

Shane: will make new one based on last (2 weeks ago) -- change in chameleon? draft needs to reflect that

SP: not sure resolved one way or another -- resolved to do so for Roles Module;
... stick with what you have for now, Shane

Roland: first working draft -- finalize, let me know, and will put in transition request

Shane: changed MUST to SHOULD

Roland: right

SP: nothing that requires for elements as does for attributes; relaxing rule for attributes, but don't need to do anything for elements

Yam: will define role, access -- part of modularization 1.1 or 1.2 or 2.0?

SP: part of 1.1 -- only plan for modularization 2

Yam: all defined modules under modularization 1.1, right?

SP: yes

Shane: not to roll into single draft

Yam: 1.1 framework -- could be useable with any 1.1 modularization

SP: right

Yam: thank you

Roland: access module needs date tweak and ready to go; mod 1.1 needs MUST to SHOULD change then ready to go; where are we with XML Events 2?

SP: have first draft of it

Roland: any updated drafts?

Shane: three comments last week

Roland: need to discuss?

Shane: need to discuss

SP: used to have "handlers" draft which XML Events 2 superseedes (does handlers as well)
... as result of comments, from WAI, i believe, for element within handler to say what handler trying to do -- mainly for accessibility -- inquire of thing "what do you do?" -- in XML Events 2 that element no longer exists

Shane: comments from Jon Boyer a few months ago re XML Events 2 and XForms

SP: don't remember resolution

MB: vaguely remember that it was a misunderstanding in need of clarification -- have open action to reply
... will reconstruct in mind and execute action

Roland: 10th of august date of comment

Shane: in issue tracker as well

SP: don't think Rich's comment needs delay XML 2 Events draft being issued; not specific issue, but query about missing "purpose" element -- could do with RDFa

Roland: wrote post on list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Nov/0020.html

SP: metadata issue

Roland: define explanation for action in one place, even if triggered in multiple places

SP: if particular button is listening for an event and knows that event has handler, could make purpose known before activating button

Roland: could use to caption button

Shane: broader question: why not contain another module (XForms UI related elements) -- are we in a position to do that?

Roland: created Role attribute, so could

SP: can argue in charter -- undeniable part of doing XML Events 2 as chartered, may need to create a module
... have to do as part of what chartered to do

Shane: approach should be taking
... similar to backplane discussions in similar areas

SP: backplane incubator group going to probably go ahead; W3C agreed on patent policy for app groups; charter for incubator group will be circulated soon

<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask if "title" as predefined role request from PFWG considered?

<Roland> John Boyer Issues with XML Events 2: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2007JulSep/0011.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2007JulSep/0012.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2007JulSep/0013.html

<markbirbeck> thanks Roland

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Oct/0123.html

ISSUE PR #8023

<ShaneM> http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xhtml2-issues/RoleAttrib?id=8023

SP: functionality could be covered not with role, but using RDFa (property="DC.title") -- h1 property="DC.title"

Shane: no longer in RDFa
... DC.title doesn't override TITLE element in context of XHTML 1.1

SP: in XHTML2 can say title is equivalent of DC.title

shane: doesn't work in 1.1 framework

SP: not sure i agree -- DC.title is "the" agreed property for giving document a title

Shane: doesn't override TITLE element

SP: for PFWG use case, DC.title gives information

GJR: wanted something to take back to PF (telecon today)

SP: property="DC.title" seems to be what is needed

Shane: provide basic properties and let others extend roles; haven't mapped all roles to other vocabularies

SP: question is, what is the mapping from role -- is it anything more than what it is?
... if trying to extract info from doc with roles and properties, property= would be best for title; "main" and "secondary" different from "title"

GJR: unminuted comments

SP: RDFa addresses problem -- will reply to comment

Shane: wants to relate to title element?

GJR: more general req b/c CDF

SP: RDFa allows one to give titles as requested

Shane: maybe mark and i need to review comments received in august -- didn't understand many of them in the XForms world

what is genesis if XML Events 2 comment 8031 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Nov/0023.html

SP: running out of time, want to address XHTML Basic 1.1 with Yam

Yam: for 2 seperate implementations can use the entire test report, right?

SP: really need testing of input mode

Yam: our team will make internal version -- input mode attached to core to implement input mode syntax; by end of november will submit report to w3c

SP: fantastic -- just what is needed

TAG Role Comment

SP: TAG issue with CURIES used in place of IRI references

<Roland> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Nov/0013

Shane: not really comment on Role; i think our answer should be that we use CURIEs in new contexts -- don't care what processors do -- for application use, not processor use

SP: depends upon definition of processor

<Steven> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/263f692a0710310622l16332b39k9b236192f7dc1e4a@mail.gmail.com>

Shane: an app that cares about it needs it, otherwise, it is just a string

SP: who cares? RDFa processor -- represent URIs -- processor might offer option to deference it; worried about CURIES going over the wire; gone out of our way to make sure that in ambiguous contexts have an ambiguous way to address; used in wikis -- not sure that such a big problem -- if processor doesn't do anything with them, then what goes over the wire is not a valid URI -- if knows about them, can go over the wire; similar to IRIs -- existing UA using IR

Roland: UAs have to declare support for IRI

SP: can put into HREF but not going to convert to proper URI

Roland: processor has to change to accomodate IRIs --

SP: don't use IRIs, but think we should

Shane: don't use CURIES anywhere where must be decoded to URI -- does not live in HREF spec; not permitted in HREF
... nor in source

SP: allow CURIES in LINK...

Shane: rel doesn't get dereferenced

SP: right HREF dereferenced

<Roland> Shanes response to TAG Role Comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2007OctDec/0023.html

Shane: do existing processors need do anything with CURIES - answer is NO

Roland: 2 aspects -- does the syntax (such as of an attribute value) have to change -- answer would be no

Shane: mistake to respond to a question that hasn't been asked
... thought replied to explicitly asked question...

SP: ping stuart for context or leave with Shane's answer

Roland: if WG has consensus, could resend as formal response

SP: discuss next week --
... no call next week -- next call in 2 week's time
... can have call if no objections

<markbirbeck> Shane...they effectively ask two questions.

none logged

<alessio> no objections me too

SP: will have a call next week (21 November 2007) at same time 1700z

present?

<Steven> I'll do the minutes Gregopry

<Steven> thanks for scribing

<Steven> Scribe: Gregory

- DRAFT -

Weekly XHTML2 WG Teleconference

14 Nov 2007

Attendees

Contents

Future F2F Meetings

Roadmap

TAG Role Comment

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output