See also: IRC log
Steven: I think Mark is travelling to the USA
Steven: The XML Base review is at the bottom of my todo list at the moment
Roland: The FtF will be a virtual one. I will send out details of times shortly.
Roland: Is in last call; any comments yet?
Steven: I got a message "the RIF group plans to use CURIE-s in their next charter for what they call presentation syntax. This is not a XML based syntax at all"
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group
Roland: We have completed second last call
... Shane, you have proposed workding as a response to SVG?
<Roland> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008May/0050.html
Shane: Yes
... SVG want more roles that map to text like properties
... I propose we politely decline
... and let them put it in their space if they want it
... 'cos that's what CURIEs are for
... Mark says that there is an intention that we map elements into roles
... great discussion to have, but I don't think that needs to be part of our
respnse
Roland: Agree
Alessio: Yes
Roland: We disagree that we should add more predefined roles into our space
Steven: Sounds right. I agree with the CURIE comment
Shane: But they can talk to the WAI people if they want
Roland: Al asked where the normative definition
is
... I would prefer it to be in the vocab spec
Steven: But is the vocab spec normative? I thought not
Roland: I would prefer it to be
... Everyone OK with Shane's response
Steven: Yes
Shane: In section 3
<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xhtml-role-20080407/#s_role_module_attributes
Shane: we list some values in our space
... SVG WG says "don't list some"
... either make it a complete list or make the section informative
Roland: Fair comment
Shane: Agree
Roland: We can just have some examples of it
being used here
... and could include CURIE properties as well
<alessio> true
Roland: We need to start the vocab doc as a rec track spec
Steven: If we want to make it normative, then
it has to be
... But if role refers to vocab, then they have to be in lockstep
Shane: I disagree with you Roland
... I think that that would work, but that it is not necessary, and a bit
heavyweight
... Role is an enabling technology, that uses CURIEs, and we say in XHTML
that the default prefix points to the XHTML vocab space
... for all XHTML CURIEs
... it is fine if we remove values from teh vocab space from the role spec
... if we remove tham and then make it dependent on another rec track spec,
that is a mixture of our and WAI stuff, then I think it will unnecessarily
impede role
Roland: So the scope of the role spec is an
attribute that allows values to come from different places, and therefore the
spec says nothing about those values
... so we refer from our vocab space to role, but not vice versa
Steven: I agree
<alessio> me too
Roland: So the role spec only illustrates the use of values, but doesn't define any
Steven: Sounds good
Shane: I think SVG WG would be happy with that
too, but we need to send the response to be sure
... I'll reword my response to reflect that
Roland: Will you please reply to Al along those lines as well?
Shane: Sure
<scribe> ACTION: Shane to reply to Al about the relationship between Role and Vocab specs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/21-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Shane to reply to SVG on role [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/21-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]
Shane: Then I think that we can transition to
CR
... we need to figure out the exit criteria for this and access
... and the relationship to M12N 1.1
... I think Access has a dependency, but not role
Roland: We have a transition call scheduled for 30th May
Steven: So we need to decide about exit criteria, and to what extent we haven't already achieved them
<ShaneM> The last CR had these:
<ShaneM> W3C is looking for testimonials from users of this specification. Additionally, experience using all of the modules is being sought to create a coverage table of the use of each module. These two criteria are needed to advance this specification to "Proposed Recommendation".
Shane: We should create a table of usage of the modules like we did for V1.0
Steven: Mark's language xh uses them
Roland: Our first objective is to achieve
CR,
... if we achieve that then we can talk about whether we have already reached
PR
Steven: We also need to remind them about the
history:
... V1 was with DTDs and an empty appendix for schemas
... we produced the schemas independently, and wanted to merge the two specs
as a PER, but got push back
... so were asked to renumber
... but really it is like the DOM with a binding for, say, javascript, and
then we add a binding for, say, Python
... nothing has changed
... it really is the same version
Roland: We'll do a checkpoint next Wednesday
<Roland> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008May/0065.html
<Roland> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008May/0067.html
Shane: I made the case privately to Noah that
we don't believe the media type needs changing
... which is consistent with your wording Steven
Steven: My reply says that the XHTML spec says
what you can do with it
... not the media type
Shane: I asked them personally what they think, since TIm believes it's OK, but I don't know what the TAG as a whole thinks
Steven: So do we send the message?
Shane: Since you are responding to the
document, that section talks about HTML, I think we should tell them that it
is about XHTML
... if they say yes, but we want it to work for HTML too, that's fine,
because that's not on our charter
Roland: I agree
<alessio> +1
<scribe> ACTION: Steven to send TAG response, with addition of XHTML comment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/21-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]
Shane: Could you Steven send references to the fact that all HTML and XML docs are in Unicode
Steven: Yes
<scribe> ACTION: Steven to send a reference to Unicode as document character set [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/21-xhtml-minutes.html#action04]