See also: IRC log
Steven: I read the selectors API spec
... no real comments
<scribe> ACTION: Steven to send response on selctors API [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/30-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]
FtF info: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml2/wiki/2007-02-Venice-FtF
Steven: Please fill in the form even if you can't come
Yam: Do we really have a three day agenda?
Roland: I definitely think there is 3 days of
work on XHTML2
... and there is surely other work to do
Gerrie: Will there only be IRC?
Steven: Also Skype to my id
Roland: Neither Rich or Gregory here today
Steven: I was expecting Rich today
Roland: He had sent regrets for the last weeks, maybe he's travelling
Steven: I have sent the transition request off, so it's in the pipeline
Roland: Shane has pointed out the new draft on the Drafts page
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts/#rdfa-syntax
Shane: Lots of changes, all diff marked
... we need to resolve to send it to last call
... there is an issue we have to take a decision on
... we used values for @rel and @property from
... XHTML2
... and these are enumerated in the spec
Shane: the chair of the TF has said that it is
our decision about extending these
... This is section 9
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080125/#s_metaAttributes
Steven: We are grandfathering them in from XHTML1
<ShaneM_> there is an issue with the use of non-xhtml defined values (e.g., nofollow) - since these values are not defined they will not by default generate triples in XHTML+RDFa
Steven: The only problem area is when peoiple
use values outside this list
... such as nofollow
Shane: Traditionally you can use other values if you use @profile
Roland: Any other comments?
Shane: There is as yet no schema
implementation
... but there is no problem with adding a schema later
Roland: Who do we want to comment on it at last call?
Steven: We can ask at HCG if HTML5 are interested. DanC is chair, and he has interest
Mark: The Semweb people are going to vote to
take this to LC on 9th Feb
... if we can match that that would be good
<gshults> I do not
Steven: Since this document is produced by people from this group I would propose that we take this as a recommendation to go to last call, and that anyone who wants more time should speak up now, otherwise we resolve
Roland: Let's make that resolution next week
... this is due warning for people to review it this week
Roland: Any change on this?
... We talked about it last week
Shane: I update the draft
Roland: so we are just waiting on M12N
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Jan/0029.html
<scribe> ACTION: Shane to check bug in Basic 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/30-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]
Shane: hr is in Basic right?
Steven: Yes
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Jan/0032.html
Steven: We don't require a DTD, just M12n
Shane: You have to interface to one of our normative implementations of M12N, so that includes DTD
Steven: How about:
"XHTML doesn't really envision the idea of adding attributes to a document after it is
loaded (after DOMready or the LOAD event fires)."
Steven: Do we agree?
Roland: No
Shane: We don't say anything about it
Steven: But it is part of the real world
expectations of XHTML
... I don't think any spec requires the DOM tree to remain conformant with
the DTD/schema
... I see now. He is interpreting this as a syntax+DOM spec. BUt it is
actually just a syntax spec
Shane: Another question he has, about what
happens when role has more than one value
... and about non-prefixed values that aren't in our set
Steven: Either leave it to the host language,
or require it to be ignored
... and if we make a decision we have to add it to the spec
... We ignore similar rel values don't we?
Mark: We do now
<markbirbeck> rel ::= (linktype | CURIE)*
Steven: We may as well do the same for role
... it would be consistent
Mark: They should come from the same
taxonomy
... since a role could have a rel value and vice versa
RESOLUTION: non prefixed role values not in the standard list should be ignored