XHTML2 WG Weekly Teleconference

25 Jun 2008


See also: IRC log



ShaneM, Roland, +04670855aaaa, Tina, Alessio, yam, Steven, Gregory_Rosmaita


XML Base last call

Roland sent in a last call comment so this is done.

XHR Comment

We sent in a response to which we got a reply, but we were unclear on whether it was official or not. Steven has an action to follow up.

He has sent a follow up and we await a reply.

<Roland> response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Jun/0085.html

XHTML Basic 1.1

Transitioned to PR. Voting is ongoing. Remember to tell your AC rep to vote!

OMA has a meeting and will formally disband the mobile browser effort after completion of 2.4.

Note there is a discussion in www-html mailing list about @style and deprecation..

XHTML M12N 1.1

SM: HenryT did some RelaxNG work - put together document - on drafts page and in agenda

<Roland> XHTML Modularization for RelaxNG : http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xhtml-m12n-relaxng-20080604/

SM: think we can just do this - nothing stopping us; but should do as separate document or see if way to do PER on M12n
... to avoid recycling, have to go through peer review for methodology for defining RelaxNG module
... once field comments, just roll in

SP: James?

SM: yes, JamesC, not HenryT
... contacted him and few others about this privaately - haven't heard back from james, but others said "good idea, we support you" let us know when you are done; should actively solicit james' formal participation

scribeNick+ OedipusWrecked

SM: grammar straightforward

SP: use James' techniques

SM: updated to be more consistent for model defined for XML Schema

SP: ChrisL, domain lead until now, will shortly move to a "technical director" at w3c
... Phillipe Le Hegeret replacing Chris as main lead
... ChrisL asked "why not Relax?"

SM: SVG said same

SP: Chris strong SVG background
... thanks shane - amazing stuff

SM: have infrastructure so not too hard to do

SP: not strictly speaking chartered to do this - have to ensure doesn't cause us grief

SM: good point

RM: pieces fall together into 1.2 and RelaxNG - address at same time

SP: new version of M12n mentioned in charter

RM: new version of M12n - set priorities of work

<yamx> time to shift to another call, my apology...

Future Meetings

<Roland> questionnaire: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Jun/0058.html

RM: SP created a questionnaire about availability of particiapants for phone calls this summer

(summer in northern hemisphere, at least)

<Steven> (3 have replied to date)

RM: push XHTML and HTML5 discussion until next week
... didn't like HTML WG response, asked to collaborate on wording - would someone like to propose that verbiage on list?

SP: initial straw-man?

RM: yes, so we can discuss

SP: will have a look --

RM: thanks - try and solve problem on list and discuss at future call

Action Item Review

RM: CURIE syntax - resolved at f2f to take to CR; Steven took action to transition request

SP: have incomplete transition req; will send this week

SM: didn't we want to coordinate with Role req to LC

RM: resolved at f2f?

SM: on agenda for today, because made updates during F2F
... if WG happy with Role, then should do both reqs at same time

Preparing Role for CR

SP: don't have new draft up yet

RM: put on next week's agenda, then

SP: go ahead with CURIEs transition req?

RM: yes

SM: yes - not coupled

XML Events 2

RM: shane sent out new draft last week and updated yesterday
... comment from XForms WG
... comment we had solicited a while ago
... comments on draft from WG members and those from XForms WG
... any comments to make on new XML Events 2 draft?

<Steven> link?

<Steven> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xml-events-20080624/

SM: diff against last editor's draft;
... draft in XHTML+RDFa
... handful of triples, but opportunity to demonstrate pub rule change WG notified about by SP on list and to prove XHTML languages work

SP: appendix A.4 - missing module; same for D.4

GJR: notes that Open Accessibility (http://a11y.org) moving to XHTML+RDFa for its specs (http://a11y.org/specs

<alessio> great news, gregory

SM: ModuleName-revision-type - we created XML Script Module, but part of XML 2 - Events model is 2; created handlers as 2 - would like advice of WG
... are they dash 2 or dash 1

RM: Handlers module and Script module - interested in feature level; first version of Handler feature module

SM: think i agree
... name should be XML Handlers 1?
... will effect change and update document

RM: need to get questions out about Handlers

SM: do we have an answer

RM: should before go forward

SM: agree - just wondering if anyone knew answer

RM: Event listeners when registered as listener for event

SM: ok

RM: don't register events, but listeners

SM: did MarkB send regrets?

SP: didn't but haven't seen him around all day

RM: when get processed is straightforward

SP: not sure what the questtion is: registered listeners for events

RM: when does that take place?
... for ListenerAction would be whatever action is - same with remove event; for Listener element that would be when document is loaded?

SP: has to happen before event "load" - want to catch load event, so needs to be fired before "load"
... XML Model Ready Event from XForms can be loaded

SM: Model Ready similar to DOM Ready
... new WebAPI draft defines DOM Ready as real state

SP: DOM Ready in XML Events as well? send event?

SM: yes

SP: prefer to ask implementors their opinion - quite a number of implementors of XML Events - what have they done what do they think is achievable

RM: when it happens

SP: another question: if modify DOM and change some part of registration of listener, should that change happen - are attributes "live" or should they not be

RM: personally, think "live"

SP: reason for uncertainty - if doing scripting anyway, most direct way of doing it would be to unregister and register events via scripting - if can do in scripting, why do in events

RM: too many assumptions - may reuse script written by 3rd party, and write the markup that is included

SP: if intention of script is to register or deregister certain listeners for events, easier to just do directly using DOM API rather than messing with DOM of document

RM: if have double fragment of markup wiht declarative event handler, but no script, just XML Events and Handlers, if that pulled in by script needs to check code?

SP: not sure
... think would make XML Events harder to implement

SM: question in document and go to LC, or solicit implementors advice first

SP: advice first - solicit from Forms WG first

<scribe> ACTION: ShaneM - solicit advice from Forms WG on registration and deregistration of listeners and handlers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]

New Comments Received Since Agenda Pushed

RM: new version of XML Schema - Last Call for XSD 1.1 -- asked to review that

SP: considering M12n, don't think have much option

SM: right, but like to try to get MarkB's take on this

RM: test water with MarkB, Shane - will put on agenda for next week
... another late request from David Orchard about TAG finding - would like our thoughts on that, too

<Roland> Proposed Final Review of W3C TAG Finding "Passwords in the Clear"

<Roland> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Jun/0083.html

RM: anyone any idea why should take a pass at this?
... Last Call courtesy?

SM: yep

RM: anyone fancy taking a look at this?

SM: i'd be happy to

<Steven> It's 2 pages long

TH: passwords in clear - confused by it
... not clear

RM: 2 sets of feedback would be good if TH wants to add to SM's comment

TH: document to comment on - last good practice suggestion contains a SHOULD rather than MUST - makes me shiver

SM: does seem odd at first impression - let's talk offline TH

RM: good
... feedback on Access from DougS as person
... GJR supposed to solicit feedback from UbiWeb;

SP: nick of XForms said "looks fine" but not official response - checking to see if on agenda for Forms call today

GJR: sent request to UbiWeb, UAWG, and DougS, who replied as individual

SP: discussion is on Forms agenda

GJR: need to ask UbiWeb chairs directly

RM: include Dave Raggett

GJR: yep


SP: heads-up to what's happening: BBC (uses microformats) announced not going to use HCalendar because of accessibility issues, so looking into using RDFa instaead - just happened a few days ago
... MarkB trying to use to draw microformats people into our fold - all trying to do same thing and RDFa may be the solution - let's work together

<Roland> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radiolabs/2008/06/removing_microformats_from_bbc.shtml

RM: use other microformats

SP: only HCal being dropped

SM: when using geostuff do you use in context of ICal?

RM: don't use calendar
... if sorted out with GoogleCalendar and iCal, might consider

XHTML 1.1 Second Edition and XHTML2

RM: as we have modularization moved forward, what is our plan
... did we get difinitive response from Ruby?

SM: XHTML 1.1 draft put up for discussion today includes Schema of Ruby module

RM: update in draft?

SM: thought i sent email
... at f2f last week, decided 1.1 should be adding Schema and errata so i produced such a document - ready to go to PER, but dependent upon M12n, so need M12n to finish process

SP: M12n can walk one step behind - think we are good to go

<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xhtml11-20080624/

RM: XHTML 1.1 Second Edition

SM: new version posted 24 june 2008
... sent notification

RM: mail gremlins, perhaps

SM: summarize changes: took out input attribute module; included schema implementation of Ruby model; changed conformance def so doctype is a MAY (done in M12n anyway)

RM: point of waiting until M12n goes through?

SM: can advance it now

GJR: plus 1

RM: let's get it off table

Proposed Resolution Move XHTML 1.1 Second Edition to PER

TH: not a problem but can someone explain issue

SM: core of issue is doctype means DTD to some people; requiring use of doctype in view of some, including TBL)
... portability guidance: always use a doctype - it is how UAs know what to do

RM: chapter of changes from XHTML 1.0 Strict, would allowing RDFa not be a change?
... in 1.1 SE, there is a changes from XHTML 1.0 Strict - should we mention RDFa?

SM: XHTML 1.0 doesn't do anything with RDFa
... change conformance definition?

RM: what does it mean to say changed doctype

SM: didn't change doctype - changed a MAY to a SHOULD

TH: without doctype, how will authors encourage identifying markup language and version
... that's what doctype is for - a label stating this is the markup language and version used in this docment - doesn't that argue for a MUST?

SM: Schema asked us to change MUST to SHOULD

<ShaneM> The start tag SHOULD contain a version attribute that declares the version of XHTML in use. The version of this version of XHTML is -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN.

SM: use @version - that's way to announce version of language in document that is portable

TH: not requiring doctype for conformance for first time since HTML Wilbur (3.2)

SP: TBL says doctypes are an old technology; seems anti-doctype
... no other technology that gives one character entities

TH: forgetting that doctype just a label, not a technology - could point to schema, but need doctype to refer to grammar

SP: particular document may satisfy more than one doctype - may not want to commit to Basic if also support 1.1

Alessio: understand

RM: what string to use for particular version?

SM: conformance clause pasted into IRC previously
... used values in DTD from 2000

SP: system identifier might make some in TAG happier

SM: didn't change - for future
... plan was to create document set slash markup features that uses RDFa to make the magic occur

RM: five minutes over time - any issues?

TH: need to discuss futher - doctype question will affect XHTML2

SM: lets discuss on list

<alessio> +1

no problem

<Steven> thanks

scribe+ OedipusWrecked

scribe+ Gregory_Rosmaita

steven, you're going to have to edit the minutes - i added myself as scribe before scribing, but it didn't take, and now i can't get the perl script to recognize my notes as minutes

<ShaneM> buckaroo????? awesome stuff. I have the script in my collection at home. best movie ever.

<Tina> It tends to rank up with "Young Einstein" ... ;)

<ShaneM> we saw it 8 times in the theater

<ShaneM> remember - no matter where you go - there you are. c'mon. its a classic.

<ShaneM> no no. don't tug on that. you never know what it might be attached to.

<Tina> ShaneM: did you ever run across the super hero generator online?

amen, brother buckaroo

<ShaneM> no...

hey, shane, i can't get rrsagent retroactively to recognize me as scribe - should i just leave as-is and let steven worry about cleaning it up?

<Tina> ShaneM: it's basically a script which assemble such phrases as "He was a rock-playin' brain-surgeon with a major in physics ... she was a .... together they fight crime!"

<ShaneM> yes that is exactly what I would do.

i swear i did a scribeNick+ OedipusWrecked, but may have typed "oedipus" out of force of habit

<ShaneM> exactly. and that's what we way in XHTML 1.1 right now. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xhtml11-20080625/conformance.html#s_conform

<Tina> ShaneM: still hurts.

<ShaneM> unfortuntaely XML stupidly REQUIRES the system identifier and made optional the PUBLIC identifier. otherwise..... it could really just be a label

<Tina> Scenario: no @accesskey is used. Should I test for ACCESS? Yeah, I should, IF ... it is XHTML 2.

<ShaneM> what would be interesting is to mandate a specific SYSTEM identifier that does not map to a DTD, but instead uses content negotaition to give what you really want

<ShaneM> Tina: or xhtml 1.2 ?

<Tina> But how do I /detect/ XHTML 2 so I know I can pass a document that way?

<ShaneM> it has a doctype and a unique @version attribute.... check for those?

<Tina> ShaneM: what if it doesn't have a DOCTYPE+

<Tina> ?

your UA will know it when it smells it - XHTML by any other name would still smell like a rose, whilst a paved cow path will always stink of cow patties

<ShaneM> well.... it definitely HAS a document. do you mean what if a document instance has no doctype?

shane, i am intrigued by your content negotiation thougts, expressed above, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter (to quote homer j.)

<Tina> ShaneM: yep. IF the document has no @accesskey, but HAS <access />, should I flag as pass?

<ShaneM> only iff the access element has a key attribute, imho.

<Tina> ShaneM: or should I say "Well, it HAS <access />, but I see no DOCTYPE, so I have no idea whether <access /> is ALLOWED for this document ... "


<ShaneM> although it could be binding to a handler that is in turm looking for specific keys. you don't need to use a key attribute.

<Tina> ShaneM: oh, yes. We'll flag access-without-key as a "manual review" anyway.


<ShaneM> very ver nice gregory

yeah, but not the response...

<Tina> ShaneM: but ... if DOCTYPE is not mandatory for XHTML 2, for instance, how the hell do I test to see if <access /> is valid for the document? Hm. XMLNS.

<ShaneM> no. same namespace

<Tina> ShaneM: argls.

<ShaneM> many people have opined that any document that validates against a schema is written using that markup language. I personally reject that argument.

<Tina> That scenario is a little too much heuristics even for SSX tho. I can't do reverse validation to figure out which language it is so I can figure out which elements ARE allowed ...

<ShaneM> however, the argument goes that if you can validate a document against XHTML MP and XHTML Basic 1.1 and XHTML 1.1 it must be an instance of all three of those.

<Tina> ShaneM: there's some validity in that argument, but in practical terms it is useless.

<ShaneM> but no, I would not recommend that you attempt to guess. if this is a tool, perhaps if you cannot discover the language you can ask the user what language they are using.

<Tina> ShaneM: that's a good idea, if SSX isn't tailored towards batch processing of sites :(

<ShaneM> yes, its a very ivory tower argument. However, I could see using the profile parameter of the content type to indicate the specific grammar(s) a document was targeted at.

<ShaneM> in general a site is all written in a specific language tho.

<Tina> ShaneM: I shall admit I don't understand the reason for not accepting that a DOCTYPE, and the fpi in particular, is simply an *identifier*

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: ShaneM - solicit advice from Forms WG on registration and deregistration of listeners and handlers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]