See also: IRC log
<Steven> Hey Roland!
<Steven> wouldn't mind, or would mind, oedipus?
wouldn't
<scribe> Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
<scribe> ScribeNick: oedipus
<Steven> You're amazing Gregory. When I have a migraine, I mind everything!
<Steven> Exvcept lying under a duvet in a darkened room
survival tactic -- residue of nerve dammage
<Steven> ha
<Steven> Remind me where you were Roland
Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/03-xhtml-minutes.html
SP: search for MarkB - sent 2 posts to emailing
list in last 24 hours
... shall i chair
RM: please do
SP: TPAC registration: 6 weeks to go
... still room for presentations on TP day for those who wish to propose a
presentation
... RDFa is now a PR - congratulations and thanks to shane
... Tina, from M12n acknowledgements as "Greytower Technologies"
TH: correct
SP: GJR as "invited expert"
GJR: correct
SP: timeline - 1) Schema Review - would like at
least shane to be around
... markB sent review to list - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0006.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0007.html
SP: MarkB seems to only have positive review
RM: no feedback, just acknowledgement that read and reviewed
TH: want to re-read next iteration
SP: deadline for comments is this friday
<Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Aug/0044.html
SP: asked to discuss specific items mark thinks
we need not worry about
... decided not to get too worked up about assertions
... think we can just send confirmation and thanks for asking us to review
RM: sounds good
TH: plus 1
GJR: plus 1
RESOLUTION: send Schema confirmation that XHTML2 WG reviewed, thanks for opportunity, no comments
SP: shane -- only thing left acknowledgements?
SM: not ready to publish yet
SP: when?
SM: thought yesterday, so probably today
SP: ping me when ready and will send off
necessary email
... ready to get stamp of approval after making sure draft is in final
shape
SP: comments should have gone to both XForms and XHTML - reply only to XForms
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0005
<Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/0015
SP: comment 1: clarification of URI - XML Base relationship to CURIEs
<Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/0018.html
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"
... added comment which answers our comment perfectly well; accept?
SM: what does this mean for RDFa?
SP: if we say it applies, then it applies
GJR: plus 1 to that
SP: a CURIE should end up being relative URI once pre-processing done
SM: in grammars that accept XML Base
SP: yes, of course
... good answer - just say thank you for doing this
... just received reply - why not accept w3c position on what constitutes a
URI - conflict between syntax space and value space
... don't mention value space, but that is answer we want -- answer is just
"yes" if CURIE allowed as URI, then Base applies
RM: plus 1
<Tina> +1
GJR: plus 1
SP: comment 2: accepted (add example)
<Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/0013.html
<Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/0014.html
SP: comment 3: missing definition - comment
about change list - URI reference change in RFC number, but not referenced in
text
... replied that it is only in the references
... not sure value of reference only in references, but on other hand is
harmless
RM: can waste some time figuring it out - put it in, so what is reason it is there?
SP: look at spec again
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PER-xmlbase-20080320/
SM: clear reference
SP: ok
<Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/0015.html
SP: commment 4: existing applications may
break
... 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
... response: never case XML Base values are URIs - change is not a normative
change - change in reference
RM: seems ok response to me
SP: no other issues to reply to
<scribe> ACTION: Steven - reply to XML Base comment replies [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]
<Tina> Zakim: unmute Tina
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
... 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
... happy with it - more comments appreciated
SP: all should review it
<Tina> http://www.dev-archive.net/articles/xhtml.html
<scribe> ACTION: Working Group - review Tina's XHTML primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]
TH: already passed by shane
... need to revise with a bit about schema -- how to use to define if element
can be child
... all comments good or bad, direct to me
<Tina> tina@greytower.net
TH: hold back on publication for a week so can make changes
RM: where published?
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
... will stay at URL but not yet in index or atom feeds (http://www.dev-archive.net/articles/xhtml.html)
... genesis: flame wars over XHTML - a lot of misunderstanding;
SP: good work
... part of spearhead action to undo some of the dammage done to XHTML
through misinformation and misunderstanding
... 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
... even had to disabuse TBL of XHTML as failure canard
RM: what is it and why? a lot of pages not valid - why claim XHTML - what looking for in XHTML?
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
RM: BBC site comes out of often malformed server side
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
SP: hard to get feedback that it is wrong
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
SP: similar to unicode - if character set is utf-8, many think have done their work, which isn't the case
TH: point of article - need to know what you
are doing when using XHTML - here is what you need to know
... any comments, please send to me -- be as critical as necessary -- going
to keep neutral
SP: if not valid, it is not XHTML - no, is incorrect XHTML, but still XHTML;
TH: problem with sending XHTML as HTML, XML parser doesn't get near it -- in that context it is HTML
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
RM: what are people's primary motivation? source serving PoV or delivery PoV
TH: dev-access uses XHTML
... transform XHTML using XSLT on dev-access
... most people don't need XHTML to start with - large educational problem
involved
... have to get people to stop saying XHTML is evil - when used for purpose
for which it was designed
[fyi] Open Accessibility uses XHTML as normative format (so can support ARIA and RDFa)
TH: a lot of people want absolutes
SM: XHTML mime discussion?
SP: yes
SM: have comment from simon peiters...
TH: link to comment?
<Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0000.html
SM: very long comment
SP: summarize how we should deal with comment
SM: what is obligation - have to respond, but not address or satisfy all comments if cannot be satisfied?
SP: have to check process on notes
TH: can we simply thank him?
RM: ought to take them on board
TH: take points aboard
SP: wrong about RFC 2119 terms -
SM: talking about document, not abstract
SP: says "this abstract sucks. it shouldn't use RFC 2119 terms"
SM: document not normative, so nothing should be normative is basis of comments, i believe
SP: dusting off to reflect experience with UAs
knowing what to do with XML; summary should say "should" because is quote
from specificiations
... first comment i disagree with
SM: next comment: "not normative" don't reference RFC 2119 -- remove and use non-RFC 2119 terms
RM: if have no reference to RFC 2119, than "should" is just plain english
<Tina> The question is: does the use of RFC 2119 references *do any harm*? Does it in any way CHANGE the content?
SP: note's strength is that abstract contains
capsule of note
... since SPieters took trouble to comment, should reply in good faith and
positively
SM: from process persepective, for me to go
through point-by-point, suggest resolutions and bring back to WG for
discussion
... M12n Rec is priority
<scribe> ACTION: Shane - review SimonP's comments point-by-point, suggest resolutions and bring back to WG for discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]
SP: need to wait for reply to comments until move forward
SM: receive any others?
SP: no, but did point HTC to it
RM: HTC call on friday
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xhtml-role-20080625/
SP: have we dealt with all the comments on Role?
SM: requested transition meeting on Role a while ago
SP: will chase that down
SM: resolved to request CR on 9 july 2008 - cited in today's agenda
SP: follow up on that
SM: dependency on CURIEs was one lingering issue
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)
<Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Aug/0137.html
SP: quick ping issue?
SM: yes
<Steven> Thread starts here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Aug/0133.html
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
RM: only for base types, not derived types
SP: quotes from post
SM: required telecon to get this resolved in RDFa TF
RM: built-in types?
SM: comments about CURIE draft not RDFa
SP: lexical space of CURIE is well defined
syntaxically
... transformed to URI by either sticking the prefix and postfix bits
together (concatinating to form URI) - result must be in any URI
SM: don't say that
SP: we don't?
SM: one place say has to be URI in another an
IRI
... also say value space is IRI
... isn't XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 IRI is same as URI
SP: thought IRI was syntaxical/lexical space
and URI is value space
... IRI cannot go over wire
RM: described in URI/IRI spec
SP: CURIEs transformed to IRI - when IRI gets sent over wire has to be transformed into URI
SM: out of our hands
SP: lexical comes from second transformation
RM: transformation occurs in circumstances other than over-the-wire -- other cases where should be transformed from IRI to URI
SP: IRI defines relationship
... what does RDF expect? URIs or IRIs?
SM: expects URIs
... doesn't anticipate existence of IRIs
... 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
... URIs are subset of IRIs
... subtle angles-on-head-of-pin stuff -- wont' get this from discussion
... if way to make clearer to get from lexical to value space and requirement
of XML Schema than should take comment on
SP: think i understand comment -- assumed good enough to say concatonate together and form an IRI, but surprised CURIE spec doesn't say that
SM: it does
SP: so what is problem?
SM: not expressed in terms of XML Datatypes -
no machine way to express concatonation
... may be why in TAG some have argued for new datatype schema for this
... is a tuple - doesn't concatonate
SP: minute over -- need to go to another call
RM: promised TAG by end of september
SM: won't rush but please cogitate upon this
ADJOURNED
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) Found Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita Found ScribeNick: oedipus Default Present: Roland, +04670855aaaa, Gregory_Rosmaita, Tina, McCarron, Steven, ShaneM Present: Gregory_Rosmaita Roland ShaneM Steven Tina WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Roland) Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Alessio Regrets: Alessio Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0008 Got date from IRC log name: 10 Sep 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-xhtml-minutes.html People with action items: - back bring comments point-by-point reply resolutions review s shane simonp steven suggest working WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]