XHTML2 WG Weekly Teleconference

12 Mar 2008


See also: IRC log



Roland, Gregory_Rosmaita, ShaneM, Steven, yamx, markbirbeck, CSB_on_IRC
tina, allessio




<scribe> scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita

<scribe> scribeNick: oedipus

<Roland> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Mar/0015.html

<markbirbeck> zakim code?

<Steven_> -> Previous http://www.w3.org/2008/03/05-xhtml-minutes.html

Outstanding Reviews

CSS Namespace review submitted by StevenP

Technical Plenary and AC Meetings Week, 20-24 October 2008

SP: discuss briefly -- traditionally taken second slot (thurs/fri) at tech plenary -- asking if have preference, i say no
... need to find out which groups we clash with -- XForms, PF -- any other groups want to avoid scheduling clash
... don't care if mon/tues or thurs/fri as long as doesn't conflict with Forms and PF
... tech plenary in nice

RM: send response along SP's lines?

GJR: +1

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to attend to TPAC scheduling [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]

CURIE transition to Last Call: status

SM: nothing from TAG -- pinged them again -- need to procede WITH their input, but if WG wants to can

SP: can go to LC saying dealt with all issues we know of, if TAG doesn't reply, then proceed; if they don't may have to cycle back to LC

SM: what we want to avoid -- outstanding TAG response 2 weeks late -- keep pinging but no response

SP: other people in TAG could be contacted (whisper in ear) -- can approach henry from another angle...

<ShaneM> to be clear - lots of responses. but the summary of the responses is "hang on - we are working on it"

SP: suggestions?

RM: dragging for quite a while -- hanging for more than a month -- give Ben a deadline -- need to procede by end of next week

SP: henry's online now -- should i ping him

SM: i did 10 minutes ago

SP: specifically request earlier in week or put as preference?

SM: don't want to impose, just preference

RM: continue to prod henry

SP: have his attention now

RM: other actions -- upload final CURIEs draft; Shane to add a non-normative schema implementation to CURIE spec

SM: wanted to ask WG what are we trying to solve there

RM: worth talking about
... want schema as well as DTD --

SM: i had added data type to master data types definition module as part of M12n
... separate data type namespace -- made sense to put there b/c modularization
... why have 2 modules
... didn't yet check in -- wanted to talk to group; not a "good, tight" definition -- placeholder right now -- complaints about "tightness" of schema defs, not sure how to make "tight"
... CURIEs just strings that might have a colon in them -- thoughts?

MB: checking my definition from work ages ago...
... can't locate, but did have a regular expression for this

RM: how does it compare wity QName built-in type?

MB: not built-in; 2) after colon doesn't have to be NC name

SP: essentially anything that can be in a URI
... struggled to find more structure than that, but series of any chars that can be in URI -- don't know what's in prefix

<ShaneM> right now I have this:

<ShaneM> <!-- CURIE -->

<ShaneM> <xs:simpleType name="CURIE">

<ShaneM> <xs:restriction base="xs:string"/>

<ShaneM> </xs:simpleType>

<ShaneM> <xs:simpleType name="CURIEs">

<ShaneM> <xs:list itemType="xh11d:CURIE"/>

<ShaneM> </xs:simpleType>

RM: CURIEs or list of CURIEs or what?

SM: pasted into IRC what i have -- that's what's there right now -- safe CURIE production, might put together 2 -- URI or CURIE data type

MB: right

SM: don't think anything sensible can say in regular expression that anyone would have confidence in

MB: way i did this was copy the productions for a relative URI -- even though difficult and allows anything, more correct to have that level of indirection, rather than us saying "only a string"
... do have regular expression that does this, have to locate

SM: why regular expression -- just a URI

SP: lexical space

SM: i believe lexical space same

RM: no, prefix, colon, URI

SM: don't need prefix

RM: optional prefix, colon, URI then

SP: URI not a CURIE and a CURIE that isn't URI

RM: conceptually different -- mistake to call same thing
... any string is what i'm getting at

SM: any URI?

RM: say "relative URI"
... specifically refer to sub-part of URI expression -- iFragment

SM: right

RM: can be anything but that is conceptual rather than string literal -- can't use in schemas (x followed by y making y fundamental data type -- just doesn't exist)

MB: assign a name

RM: create regular expression that maps to this

MB: URI doesn't contain regular expression

<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema

SM: have to relook at XML data type schema but son't think regular expression

MB: differences: 1) not built-in type -- built-in types don't need regular expression, but we do

RM: how validate in schema? validate that URI is a URI

MB: discussion just morphed into "do we need to do this" -- yes, can write regular expression, but so broad it isn't completely useful -- making it any string not the correct solution -- need a regular expression, but need to be aware that anything can be in regular expression

RM: restraint for CURIE as whole?

MB: done in past -- have to locate

SM: if MB has regular expression that works, ok with string -- M12n data types makes most sense
... M12n doesn't actually use it today
... but we have produced modules that use it so M12n is right place (RDFa and Role need it)

RM: document that schema in m12n spec

SM: yes

<scribe> ACTION: MarkBirbeck - produce regular expression and URI/CURIE type [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]

SM: RDFa has use for that -- use case TAG most afraid of
... mixing CURIEs and URIs -- that's what they are nervous about

<scribe> ACTION: ShaneM - document that "such types exist" in m12n in document; MarkB will produce actual definitions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]

RM: anything else about CURIEs?
... next wednesday, decide if want to procede even if don't hear back from TAG

SP: 2 other agenda items -- 1) june face 2 face -- created blank face to face page on wiki

SM: contacted hotels and will get info back to WG this week

<Roland> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml2/wiki/2008-06-Minneapolis-FtF

SP: 2) getting the message out -- year or 2 ago, some people complained that no one supporting XHTML and publishing denegrating statistics and so is a "failure"
... this weekend, looked at top web sites -- went to alexa and found list of 100 most popular websites (on basis of bandwith) -- examined to see if use XHTML -- numbers far greater than that being claimed by XHTML opponents

RM: part of confusion may be mime-type

SP: healthy proportion that did it completely right; also a reasonable proportion that did same for HTML4; then a number of pages where clearly XHTML (had all the attributes had quotes, closing slash and lower case) but not documented correctly -- remainder tag souop

RM: BBC web site -- XHTML Strict

SP: should do analysis properly -- look at top 100, create article about strength of support 30% use correctly, 20-25% don't declare propertly
... where to publish

RM: can start putting into wiki

SP: if do something like that, good to fanfare it

RM: just make available via wiki as first step

MB: excellent to get numbers, but since XHTML spec says should use XHTML mime-type/DTD, opponents say that is not XHTML

RM: bring all together -- with looser mime-type, we have a lot more XHTML than people are admitting; have to express that spec not so uptight or restrictive

MB: initial claim - XHTML broken, let's get more mileage out of HTML -- now XML serialization as XHTML5 -- going against initial claims, but in an end-around manner, letting fox into chicken house
... no extensibility, but one huge document that has to cater to not being XHTML; showing XHTML has traction would be useful

RM: need to go more in direction of XHTML being rendered by HTML renderers; nothing in spec about it - XHTML renderers rare, given IE's share, should look at loosening mime type, but also means of XHTML in today's UAs being rendered by HTML engines

SP: thought agreed to change mime-type

SM: discussed it but received massive objections -- haven't made change publicly
... changed in XHTML 1.1 working draft and people went nuts

RM: also require an XML parser -- inhibits uptake of XHTML

SM: don't require XML parser

RM: XML application, though

SM: big arguements get from WHAT WG people is that XHTML doesn't work in wild -- if but embedded CDATA sections that redo DTD doesn't work in browserX

RM: if XML namespace used, won't work in current browser

<ShaneM> XHTML 1.0 Appendix A was intended to give guidance

RM: confusion -- people don't know where W3C is going on this -- needs more thought and energy

SP: agree

MB: worthwile and ongoing work -- XHTML, XML and XHTML2 -- modularized and extensible benefits

<Steven_> "XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix C, "HTML Compatibility Guidelines" may be labeled with the Internet Media Type "text/html" [RFC2854], as they are compatible with most HTML browsers."

SM: core of misunderstanding is Appendix C from XHTML 1.0 -- did a bad job there -- if going to fix, start there -- add similar appendix with XHTML 1.1 as non-normative appendix

[general agreement[

<Steven_> "Those documents, and any other document conforming to this specification, may also be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236]. "

Yam; last week japanese W3C member meetings; 1 main topic HTML5 -- surprised that more than 75% of HTML5 presentation that IE8 beta2 will support some HTML5 features; some HTML5 features supported by IE8 - no committment to support whole thing in FF;

RM: IE8 beta will improve things generally

SP: do we think analysis worthwile?


SP: put it somewhere?


RM: put into wiki first and then sort and filter

SP: 30 of top 100 (majority) use XHTML

<ShaneM> ACTION: Shane to migrate Appendix C to the draft XHTML 1.1 second edition [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-xhtml-minutes.html#action04]

RM: what happens in diff geographic areas and diff languages -- browsers differ geogrphically -- content could be used in diff ways for markets -- know how to ID mobile
... agenda review, redux -- M12n?

SP: collecting dates from w3c people -- communications people don't join call anymore -- hope by end of week will have range of dates from steve bratt -- then can select suitable date
... Shane, do we have an editor's draft that disposes all of steve b's comments

SM: don't remember

SP: included pointers in request

SM: have to investigate

SP: please do, then can schedule call

XHTML Basic 1.1

SP: waiting on me -- trying to finish implementation reports this week

RM: skip XHTML 1.1 SE status for now
... actions against RDFa syntax

Steven to reply to TAG that we disagree. (in process)

SM: added note that there is a risk that humans might perceivea CURIE as a URI

RM: Role Module - running bit behind CURIEs -- have the implementation convention and Role Attribute module changes from WAI-PF -- finally received
... any difficulties

<Steven> But can you spell it?


RM: all wai roles into xhtml namespace so don't have to be prefix qualified

<Steven> That was my point

SM: can put PF's in our namespace -- left room for it in Vocabulary document

<Steven> that is not how one spells it

<Steven> I think it is a bad choice for that reason

RM: enough to procede?

<markbirbeck> +1 to Steven


<Steven> I don't like complementary

<scribe> ACTION: ShaneM - incorporate WAI-PF verbiage to Role vocabulary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-xhtml-minutes.html#action05]

<Steven> 92%+96%! No wonder it was so loud!

<Roland> yes please

no problem

GJR: by the way, PF is giving XHTML2 / Shane the final say on "complimentary" or "supplemental" or something better than "secondary" (deemed pejorative)

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: MarkBirbeck - produce regular expression and URI/CURIE type [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Shane to migrate Appendix C to the draft XHTML 1.1 second edition [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-xhtml-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: ShaneM - document that "such types exist" in m12n in document; MarkB will produce actual definitions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: ShaneM - incorporate WAI-PF verbiage to Role vocabulary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-xhtml-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Steven to attend to TPAC scheduling [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/03/13 15:45:47 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/SP: contacted/SM: contacted/
Succeeded: s/Appendix A/Appendix C/
Succeeded: s/MB: what happens in diff geographic/??: what happens in diff geographic/
Succeeded: s/??/RM/
Found Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
Found ScribeNick: oedipus
Default Present: Roland, Gregory_Rosmaita, ShaneM, Steven, yamx, markbirbeck
Present: Roland Gregory_Rosmaita ShaneM Steven yamx markbirbeck CSB_on_IRC
Regrets: tina allessio
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Mar/0015.html
Got date from IRC log name: 12 Mar 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-xhtml-minutes.html
People with action items: - incorporate markbirbeck shane shanem steven verbiage wai-pf

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]