See also: IRC log
Roland: ITS Best Practices
<Roland> ITS Best practices [Note new version]
Shane: I reviewed it, and my general feeling is "it's fine" and thanks to them for doing what we asked (making a module)
Steven: You had some remarks about ruby?
Shane: The ruby spec doesn't mention a
namespace
... they see, to have added it to their namespace as well (as ours)
Steven: So there are two rubys
Shane: But that is in their spec, not this document
Steven: So you don't think there are any comments to make?
Shane: No
Roland: CSS Mobile
... who was reviewer?
Steven: Yam
... I have a vague feeling that I shoould have been given an action last week
to forward Yam's review
... I will
<scribe> ACTION: Steven to forward Yam's CSS review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/21-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]
<Roland> This questionnaire is open from 2007-11-14 to 2007-11-21.
Roland: the deadline is today
Steven: So we can make a decision now
... looking at the results, the only time that has no "No" is Wednesday
14:00UTC
Roland: Will we review this?
... in the spring?
Steven: No need, because it only makes it easier for Japanese (it is pinned to Boston time, so it becomes 13:00UTC
Roland: Propose moving call time one hour
earlier.
... Objections?
<Rich> no objection
<oedipus> +1 from GJR
RESOLUTION: Call will be at 14:00 UTC forthwith
<scribe> ACTION: Steven to change teleconference slot [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/21-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Nov/0024.html
Roland: We need to do something about the presentation of assertions in current documents
Steven: I think we should make them prettier and document them at the beginning of each document
Gregory: They are useful. I am currently
investigating the best way to use CSS in these cases (to support assistive
software). I will report later.
... Many screen readers can't cope with things that are only different by
color
Steven: And we don't use del and ins?
Shane: No, because of validation problems
Roland: This is a semantics issue, not just styling
Rich: I agree strongly
Gregory: Separating style and content doesn't guarantee accessibility
<Roland> http://new.eic-community.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=441
Roland: There are other groups doing similar
things
... that even include stronger constraints than schema, that can be
automatically extracted
Shane: How about role?
Steven: Or RDFa?
Roland: Good idea
Shane: Is there a subject and object?
Roland: I think it can be done
Rich: In any case we need to map it to a framework for accessible software
<ShaneM> @role could easily be used to annotate the assertions instead of @class, which is what I am doing today.
Gregory: Let's continue on list
Roland: So we just need a host for the second FtF. The rest is clear
1. 18-20 Feb Venice Italy (Host Alessio)
2. 16-18 June NE USA (such as NY or Boston, looking for a host)
3. xx-yy October, France (TPAC 2008)
Roland: No Yam, so we will postpone
<scribe> ACTION: Steven to tell Yam about test reports [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/21-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]
http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xhtml2-issues/RoleAttrib?id=8023
Gregory: I took it to PF
... and what came back was that PF is very interested in the DC usage
... and RDFa syntax uses colonised attribute values
... which is a risk wrt HTML5
Shane: I appreciate the basic issue
... but what is the problem?
Steven: They asked for a value of @role for
title
... and we replied that RDFa supports that usage
... But role has colonised values too!
<oedipus> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2007OctDec/0194.html]
Steven: And I thought that the problem with HTML5 was colonised attributes not the values.
Rich: title isn't a section of a document surely?
Steven: Quite, it is a property of some
content
... which is why property="dc:title" is better than role="title"
<oedipus> RDFa Sufficient Post: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2007OctDec/0191.html
Shane:I don't think property="dc:title" covers it
Steven:Well, if you use an @about if it is not the title of the document, but a section
Shane:Oh, ok
Gregory: I have asked them (PF) to explain more, and we'll see
Rich: Let's hold off until PF meets (later today)
Roland: So this is in progress, and we don't have to do anything more yet
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Nov/0013
<oedipus> GJR notes that "title" and RDFa is on the agenda for the 21 november 2007 PF telecon
Shane: They replied to my informal reply http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2007OctDec/0025.html
... the comment is not actually on the role spec, so I don't think we need to
treat it as a LC comment
... it is about CURIES in the context where a URI ref might be used
<oedipus> TAG tracker issue cited in TAG comments: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/56
Shane: my epiphany yesterday is that the URI aspect of CURIEs is not interesting to me. I dont care that I can express a compact URI (e.g. in @resource or @about)
<oedipus> larger TAG issue: "Do the expected benefits of CURIEs outweigh the potential costs in introducing a third syntax for identifiers into the languages of the Web?"
Mark: Do we need to make a formal response?
Shane: Yes, it is framed as a LC comment
Mark: But there is not a lot of substance to their comment
<oedipus> TAG issue is named: "Abbreviating URIs in Web Languages"
Shane: in the role document CURIEs are not used in URI contexts, so their comment doesn't count
Steven: [argument about how IRIs do this already]
Shane: A fine argument, but we don't need to
use it
... we don't use CURIEs in such positions anyway
<ShaneM> they did request: The TAG requests language to the following effect be included in the normative specification of CURIEs.
<ShaneM> "CURIEs, including safe_curies, MUST NOT be used in attribute or element
<ShaneM> content where URI content is specified in the relevant language
<ShaneM> specification."
Mark: I don't think we need to consider their argument at all, since it is just not clear enough
Shane: I think we should react to that for the
role spec
... but put off the wider issue until the CURIE spec
Steven: Can't we just say "Thanks, this is what we do in role already"
Shane: We don't want to piss off the TAG
Roland: So how do we reply?
RESOLUTION: Reply to TAG that we don't use CURIEs in URI context in the role module
<scribe> ACTION: Reply to TAG about CURIEs in role [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/21-xhtml-minutes.html#action04]
Roland: They can respond on CURIEs when that spec is published
<ShaneM> publication of the updated CURIE spec is imminent
[ADJOURNED]
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/ser/se/ Succeeded: s/puin/pin/ Succeeded: s/ty/ry/ Succeeded: s/56/5/ Succeeded: s/repled/replied/ Succeeded: s/of/off/ Found Scribe: Steven Inferring ScribeNick: Steven Default Present: Roland, Steven, ShaneM, Gregory_Rosmaita, Rich, markbirbeck Present: Roland Steven ShaneM Gregory_Rosmaita Rich markbirbeck Regrets: Yam Tina Alessio Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Nov/0029 Got date from IRC log name: 21 Nov 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/11/21-xhtml-minutes.html People with action items: reply steven[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]