13:08:00 RRSAgent has joined #xhtml
13:08:00 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-xhtml-irc
13:08:07 Zakim has joined #xhtml
13:08:13 zakim, this will be xhtml
13:08:13 ok, Steven; I see IA_XHTML2()9:45AM scheduled to start in 37 minutes
13:08:24 rrsagent, make log public
13:08:41 Meeting: XHTML2 WG Weekly Teleconference
13:08:44 Chair: Steven
13:08:48 Regrets: Roland
13:32:49 Roland has joined #xhtml
13:39:31 oedipus has joined #xhtml
13:40:42 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0008
13:40:46 Hey Roland!
13:40:55 Steven has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0008
13:41:39 wouldn't mind, or would mind, oedipus?
13:41:51 wouldn't
13:41:58 Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
13:42:04 ScribeNick: oedipus
13:42:31 You're amazing Gregory. When I have a migraine, I mind everything!
13:42:42 Exvcept lying under a duvet in a darkened room
13:42:54 survival tactic -- residue of nerve dammage
13:43:02 ha
13:43:19 Remind me where you were Roland
13:43:52 IA_XHTML2()9:45AM has now started
13:44:00 +Roland_Merrick
13:44:28 Zakim, Roland_Merrick is Roland
13:44:28 +Roland; got it
13:44:44 + +04670855aaaa
13:44:59 +Gregory_Rosmaita
13:45:12 zakim, aaaa is Tina
13:45:12 +Tina; got it
13:45:40 zakim, who is making noise?
13:45:51 oedipus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Roland (5%), Tina (20%), Gregory_Rosmaita (24%)
13:46:00 +McCarron
13:46:25 regrets: Alessio
13:46:27 zakim, dial steven-617
13:46:28 ok, Steven; the call is being made
13:46:30 +Steven
13:46:32 rrsagent, make minutes
13:46:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
13:46:58 rrsagent, make logs world-visible
13:47:11 zakim, who is here?
13:47:11 On the phone I see Roland, Tina, Gregory_Rosmaita, McCarron, Steven
13:47:12 On IRC I see oedipus, Roland, Zakim, RRSAgent, Tina, Steven
13:47:30 Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/03-xhtml-minutes.html
13:47:33 rrsagent, make logs world-visible
13:47:37 rrsagent, make minutes
13:47:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
13:48:02 TOPIC: Agenda Shaping and Announcements
13:48:23 SP: search for MarkB - sent 2 posts to emailing list in last 24 hours
13:48:28 SP: shall i chair
13:48:31 RM: please do
13:48:58 SP: TPAC registration: 6 weeks to go
13:49:13 SP: still room for presentations on TP day for those who wish to propose a presentation
13:49:24 SP: RDFa is now a PR - congratulations and thanks to shane
13:49:45 -McCarron
13:50:27 SP: Tina, from M12n acknowledgements as "Greytower Technologies"
13:50:30 TH: correct
13:50:37 SP: GJR as "invited expert"
13:50:40 GJR: correct
13:51:25 SP: timeline - 1) Schema Review - would like at least shane to be around
13:51:42 SP: markB sent review to list - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0006.html
13:51:51 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0007.html
13:52:14 +ShaneM
13:52:30 TOPIC: Schema Review
13:52:41 SP: MarkB seems to only have positive review
13:52:56 RM: no feedback, just acknowledgement that read and reviewed
13:53:14 TH: want to re-read next iteration
13:53:20 SP: deadline for comments is this friday
13:53:27 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Aug/0044.html
13:53:43 SP: asked to discuss specific items mark thinks we need not worry about
13:53:59 SP: decided not to get too worked up about assertions
13:54:12 SP: think we can just send confirmation and thanks for asking us to review
13:54:16 RM: sounds good
13:54:16 ShaneM has joined #xhtml
13:54:18 TH: plus 1
13:54:21 GJR: plus 1
13:54:49 RESOLVED: send Schema confirmation that XHTML2 WG reviewed, thanks for opportunity, no comments
13:54:57 TOPIC: M12n Status
13:55:08 SP: shane -- only thing left acknowledgements?
13:55:19 SM: not ready to publish yet
13:55:21 SP: when?
13:55:32 SM: thought yesterday, so probably today
13:55:46 SP: ping me when ready and will send off necessary email
13:56:11 SP: ready to get stamp of approval after making sure draft is in final shape
13:56:21 TOPIC: XML Base Comments
13:56:48 SP: comments should have gone to both XForms and XHTML - reply only to XForms
13:56:59 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0005
13:57:19 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/0015
13:57:22 SP: comment 1: clarification of URI - XML Base relationship to CURIEs
13:58:01 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/0018.html
13:58:01 SP: reply suggests that it is up to XML Vocabulary to decide what is URL - good answer, but need to say so in spec; emailed asking if could just state declaratively -- seem to have said "yes"
13:58:18 SP: added comment which answers our comment perfectly well; accept?
13:58:33 SM: what does this mean for RDFa?
13:58:42 SP: if we say it applies, then it applies
13:58:47 GJR: plus 1 to that
13:59:02 SP: a CURIE should end up being relative URI once pre-processing done
13:59:11 SM: in grammars that accept XML Base
13:59:14 SP: yes, of course
13:59:23 zakim, who is noisy?
13:59:35 Steven, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Tina (57%)
13:59:47 zakim, mute tina
13:59:47 Tina should now be muted
13:59:59 SP: good answer - just say thank you for doing this
14:00:23 SP: just received reply - why not accept w3c position on what constitutes a URI - conflict between syntax space and value space
14:01:01 SP: don't mention value space, but that is answer we want -- answer is just "yes" if CURIE allowed as URI, then Base applies
14:01:06 RM: plus 1
14:01:07 +1
14:01:08 GJR: plus 1
14:01:25 SP: comment 2: accepted (add example)
14:01:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/0013.html
14:01:40 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/0014.html
14:01:49 markbirbeck has joined #xhtml
14:02:04 SP: comment 3: missing definition - comment about change list - URI reference change in RFC number, but not referenced in text
14:02:16 SP: replied that it is only in the references
14:02:32 SP: not sure value of reference only in references, but on other hand is harmless
14:02:40 cbottoml has joined #xhtml
14:02:48 RM: can waste some time figuring it out - put it in, so what is reason it is there?
14:02:55 SP: look at spec again
14:03:36 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
14:03:43 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PER-xmlbase-20080320/
14:04:26 SM: clear reference
14:04:29 SP: ok
14:04:41 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/0015.html
14:04:43 SP: commment 4: existing applications may break
14:05:31 SP: may have been misunderstanding on our part - thought changing def of URI in Base (what is allowed in XML Base attribute) - was this change allowed to make to make PER rather than cycling through LC
14:06:09 SP: response: never case XML Base values are URIs - change is not a normative change - change in reference
14:06:44 RM: seems ok response to me
14:06:56 SP: no other issues to reply to
14:07:20 ACTION: Steven - reply to XML Base comment replies
14:07:26 rrsagent, make minutes
14:07:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
14:07:42 TOPIC: Tina's Primer
14:07:48 Zakim: unmute Tina
14:07:53 ack tina
14:07:57 zakim, unmute Tina
14:07:57 Tina was not muted, oedipus
14:09:16 TH: background: freenodes web channel - started writing XHTML primer that is value neutral vis a vis values and principles; been writing up, took time but last draft done yesterday
14:10:08 TH: meant to be introduction to XHTML - explain where fits into web of today without taking political stance either way - suggests way of doing content negotiation, a bit of history and bit of detail; will end up in topic of #web channel at freenodes
14:10:18 TH: happy with it - more comments appreciated
14:10:22 SP: all should review it
14:10:30 http://www.dev-archive.net/articles/xhtml.html
14:10:42 ACTION: Working Group - review Tina's XHTML primer
14:10:58 TH: already passed by shane
14:11:41 TH: need to revise with a bit about schema -- how to use to define if element can be child
14:11:48 TH: all comments good or bad, direct to me
14:11:49 tina@greytower.net
14:12:07 TH: hold back on publication for a week so can make changes
14:12:11 RM: where published?
14:12:53 TH: dev-archive -- took over css.nu (CSS info site) -- publishing documents there that aren't related to any specific company - neutral place to publish articles and documents
14:13:16 TH: will stay at URL but not yet in index or atom feeds (http://www.dev-archive.net/articles/xhtml.html)
14:13:34 TH: genesis: flame wars over XHTML - a lot of misunderstanding;
14:13:36 SP: good work
14:14:00 SP: part of spearhead action to undo some of the dammage done to XHTML through misinformation and misunderstanding
14:15:33 SP: W3C at TPAC last year, presenter said 0.0% pages on web using XHTML -- spun the data - applications not served as appllication/xml but text/html when comes down pipe; analysis of pages on web found approximately half announcing themselves as XHTML; would be good if can make some announcement of that - 15% of top 20 web servers serve XHTML to undo some of the dammage
14:15:54 SP: even had to disabuse TBL of XHTML as failure canard
14:16:13 RM: what is it and why? a lot of pages not valid - why claim XHTML - what looking for in XHTML?
14:16:52 SP: part of problem is UAs don't validate, so no message it is wrong; like a compiler - same attitude to web pages - chuck at browser and if works as intended, everyone is ok
14:17:17 RM: BBC site comes out of often malformed server side
14:17:50 TH: if send as XHTML this will happen, if send as text/html this will happen; a lot of use of XHTML as HTML which results in poor pages
14:17:56 SP: hard to get feedback that it is wrong
14:18:30 TH: need to explain that need to know what is doing with XHTML; XHTML Transitional doctype is being treated as HTML4; all authors know is use XHTML
14:18:53 SP: similar to unicode - if character set is utf-8, many think have done their work, which isn't the case
14:19:20 TH: point of article - need to know what you are doing when using XHTML - here is what you need to know
14:19:46 TH: any comments, please send to me -- be as critical as necessary -- going to keep neutral
14:20:16 SP: if not valid, it is not XHTML - no, is incorrect XHTML, but still XHTML;
14:20:38 TH: problem with sending XHTML as HTML, XML parser doesn't get near it -- in that context it is HTML
14:21:11 SP: as long as intention of page is adhered to, don't serve things as XHTML for browsers, but for XML pipeline that allows XML output at end
14:21:34 RM: what are people's primary motivation? source serving PoV or delivery PoV
14:21:42 TH: dev-access uses XHTML
14:22:27 TH: transform XHTML using XSLT on dev-access
14:22:47 TH: most people don't need XHTML to start with - large educational problem involved
14:23:11 TH: have to get people to stop saying XHTML is evil - when used for purpose for which it was designed
14:23:43 [fyi] Open Accessibility uses XHTML as normative format (so can support ARIA and RDFa)
14:23:56 TH: a lot of people want absolutes
14:24:15 SM: XHTML mime discussion?
14:24:18 SP: yes
14:24:32 TOPIC: XHTML Mime Type
14:25:19 SM: have comment from simon peiters...
14:25:24 TH: link to comment?
14:25:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0000.html
14:25:51 SM: very long comment
14:25:59 SP: summarize how we should deal with comment
14:27:57 SM: what is obligation - have to respond, but not address or satisfy all comments if cannot be satisfied?
14:28:07 SP: have to check process on notes
14:28:12 TH: can we simply thank him?
14:28:21 RM: ought to take them on board
14:28:42 TH: take points aboard
14:28:56 SP: wrong about RFC 2119 terms -
14:29:03 SM: talking about document, not abstract
14:29:14 SP: says "this abstract sucks. it shouldn't use RFC 2119 terms"
14:29:32 SM: document not normative, so nothing should be normative is basis of comments, i believe
14:29:54 zakim, mute Tina
14:29:54 Tina should now be muted
14:30:17 SP: dusting off to reflect experience with UAs knowing what to do with XML; summary should say "should" because is quote from specificiations
14:30:24 SP: first comment i disagree with
14:30:42 SM: next comment: "not normative" don't reference RFC 2119 -- remove and use non-RFC 2119 terms
14:30:56 RM: if have no reference to RFC 2119, than "should" is just plain english
14:31:13 The question is: does the use of RFC 2119 references *do any harm*? Does it in any way CHANGE the content?
14:31:14 SP: note's strength is that abstract contains capsule of note
14:31:43 SP: since SPieters took trouble to comment, should reply in good faith and positively
14:32:12 SM: from process persepective, for me to go through point-by-point, suggest resolutions and bring back to WG for discussion
14:32:21 SM: M12n Rec is priority
14:32:51 ACTION: Shane - review SimonP's comments point-by-point, suggest resolutions and bring back to WG for discussion
14:33:36 SP: need to wait for reply to comments until move forward
14:33:39 SM: receive any others?
14:33:46 SP: no, but did point HTC to it
14:33:58 RM: HTC call on friday
14:34:21 TOPIC: Role Module & Comments
14:34:22 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xhtml-role-20080625/
14:34:30 SP: have we dealt with all the comments on Role?
14:34:50 SM: requested transition meeting on Role a while ago
14:34:57 SP: will chase that down
14:35:14 SM: resolved to request CR on 9 july 2008 - cited in today's agenda
14:35:20 SP: follow up on that
14:35:30 SM: dependency on CURIEs was one lingering issue
14:35:55 TOPIC: CURIEs
14:36:39 SM: did anyone follow discussion on CURIEs in RDFa task force -- jonathan rhys sent in comments on 30 August 2008 to RDFa task force (not copied to public-xhtml2)
14:37:00 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Aug/0137.html
14:37:02 SP: quick ping issue?
14:37:03 SM: yes
14:37:22 Thread starts here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Aug/0133.html
14:38:01 SM: issue is JRhys believes need to define in CURIE spec the transformation fucntion to get from curie lexical space to curie value space - requirement of XML Schema Datatypes, so must be done; concrete comment against CURIEs need to resolve before request CR transition
14:38:14 RM: only for base types, not derived types
14:38:22 SP: quotes from post
14:38:33 SM: required telecon to get this resolved in RDFa TF
14:38:43 RM: built-in types?
14:38:52 SM: comments about CURIE draft not RDFa
14:39:31 SP: lexical space of CURIE is well defined syntaxically
14:40:04 SP: transformed to URI by either sticking the prefix and postfix bits together (concatinating to form URI) - result must be in any URI
14:40:06 SM: don't say that
14:40:10 SP: we don't?
14:40:20 SM: one place say has to be URI in another an IRI
14:40:25 SM: also say value space is IRI
14:40:39 SM: isn't XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 IRI is same as URI
14:40:53 SP: thought IRI was syntaxical/lexical space and URI is value space
14:41:00 SP: IRI cannot go over wire
14:41:07 RM: described in URI/IRI spec
14:41:26 SP: CURIEs transformed to IRI - when IRI gets sent over wire has to be transformed into URI
14:41:30 SM: out of our hands
14:41:44 SP: lexical comes from second transformation
14:42:08 RM: transformation occurs in circumstances other than over-the-wire -- other cases where should be transformed from IRI to URI
14:42:22 SP: IRI defines relationship
14:42:33 SP: what does RDF expect? URIs or IRIs?
14:42:36 SM: expects URIs
14:42:44 SM: doesn't anticipate existence of IRIs
14:43:42 SM: they are tokens, so almost doesn't matter; IRIs are lexical space in real world, and there is not a 1 to 1 mapping from IRI to URI - not isomorphic - many to one mapping -- more than one IRI representation
14:43:51 SM: URIs are subset of IRIs
14:44:12 SM: subtle angles-on-head-of-pin stuff -- wont' get this from discussion
14:45:02 SM: if way to make clearer to get from lexical to value space and requirement of XML Schema than should take comment on
14:45:31 SP: think i understand comment -- assumed good enough to say concatonate together and form an IRI, but surprised CURIE spec doesn't say that
14:45:34 SM: it does
14:45:38 SP: so what is problem?
14:46:11