See also: IRC log
Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/17-xhtml-minutes
TP Registration: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Aug/0000.html
RM: TPAC - who has registered
GJR: will probably not be able to make it due to health reasons
RM: i have registered
<ShaneM> I have not registered, and will not be attending
TH: i have not
RM: remote participation
GJR: probably
<ShaneM> I will be able to join via phone all days
TH: should be able to attend by phone - intend to join via phone all days
GJR: all days and times possible
RM: SP requested speaker phone, so we can do calls
GJR: can always do the skype thing as we did in italy
RM: not sure about alessio or mark
<Steven> Sorry, lost track of time
SP: since turnout will be low, requested telecon
phone
... Roland, Mark, Steven - yes; Alessio - maybe; GJR: more unlikely than
probable
... low attendence, so try to do as last time, via teleconferencing
RM: have a lot that hang around -- would like to use tracker to clean up outdated and overdue issues
<Roland> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/
<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
<trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)
http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc
http://www.dev-archive.net/articles/xhtml.html
TH: won't publish new draft until have all new info folded in
RM: working on media type heuristics?
<Steven> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/17-xhtml-minutes
TH: only piece waiting for from XHTML WG
SP: didn't give myself an action to do that
<scribe> ACTION: Steven to send examples of media type heuristics to Tina [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/24-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
trackbot, associate this channhel with #xhtml
<trackbot> Sorry, oedipus, I don't understand 'trackbot, associate this channhel with #xhtml'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
SP: should be done next week
RM: before or after call?
SP: send update a.s.a.p - team calls cancelled last 2 weeks
trackbot, associate this channhel with IA_XHTML2()9:45AM
<trackbot> Sorry, oedipus, I don't understand 'trackbot, associate this channhel with IA_XHTML2()9:45AM'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
RM: Shane - review requests?
SM: Role is fine with me
SP: resolved to go transition, but then received new comments; no revised version of spec since comments came in
SM: resolved not to request CR until CURIE ready
to go to CR, and then needed to wait for TAG to give us comments on CURIE
... don't remember comments on Role
RM: link to comments?
<Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JulSep/0009.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JulSep/0009.html
references: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xhtml-role-20080407/ draft
RM: work through these now?
SM: haven't read yet
GJR: me neither
RM: walk through them quickly
(1) First, we congratulate the XHTML Working Group for providing a useful and clear namespace document for the namespace
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/
We wish more groups responsible for namespace did so well by the users of their namespaces.
RM: no action needed
(2) That said, we think the namespace document could be improved by the addition of some more information. A document date would be helpful, and the identity of those responsible for the text of the document, and for the namespace, could be stated more explicitly. (From the fact that "The XHTML specifications are developed by the W3C XHTML 2 Working Group as part of the W3C HTML Activity", it may be thought to follow that it is the XHTML 2 Working Group whic
SM: vocab is NOT A NAMESPACE DOCUMENT!!!
SP: that's what people call it
SM: but not a namespace URI, but vocab URI -
namespaces declare elements and attributes
... cultural change which should start here
... why we never call it a namespace
SP: reply should be "please to not consider as a namepace"
<Roland> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/
RM: thought talking about vocab
<Steven> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/
<Steven> It calls itself a namesapce
SM: we are
RM: part of vocab doc is "namespace"
... change title?
SP: will do right now once we agree what to substitute
first 3 paragraphs of vocab doc:
This is a vocabulary collection utilized by XHTML Family modules and document types using XHTML Modularization, including XHTML Role and XHTML + RDFa as defined in rdfa-syntax.
The XHTML specifications are developed by the W3C XHTML 2 Working Group as part of the W3C HTML Activity.
For more information about XML, please refer to the Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 specification. For more information about XML namespaces, please refer to the Namespaces in XML specification.
SM: agree that vocab def document could be better, so need to fix
RM: clarify vocabulary versus namespace
SM: vocabulary not in TR space
... can change vocab when needed
SP: because not namespace, don't have to follow rules on namespaces
RM: would be very helpful to state how to manage
this type of resource
... understanding what will happen with it
SM: elements that are in it won't be removed, but others will be added over time
RM: reasonable
... evolve policy - nothing will be removed, things will be defined, refined
and added
RESOLUTION: policy for vocab document: nothing will be removed; things contained may be more clearly defined/refined, and others added
SM: point 4 - don't like CURIEs - could be done
with QNames
... 2 points to make: QNames don't belong in attributes and QNames do not map
to URIs but URIs and values; we need URIs
RM: sounds reasonable
GJR: plus 1
(5) If it's desired to provide the better validation and easier access to the namespace binding which would be provided by using the xsd:QName type, but nevertheless not to rule out the use of CURIEs which are not QNames, then we suggest the best way to define the role attribute right now would be to define (1) a union of QName and CURIE (in that order), and (2) a list of values from that union, and to make the latter the type of the role attribute. That wou
SM: talking about CURIEs - are they addressing
the prefix?
... we provided XSD datatype for CURIE which is similar to QNames and should
resolve their issues - point them at where datatype defined and how used by
role
scribe's note: comments refer to: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xhtml-role-20080407/
SM: probably wasn't updated against latest M12n
draft at time of review
... love to have them to review, so point them to latest ED
RM: does def of role attribute depends on CURIE i think is question
SM: comment 7 - conflation problem again
... thinking about it in context of QNames, and we don't address QNames -
comments relevant to QNames, not CURIEs
RM: answer to 7 - these are CURIEs and not QNames and the rules are different
TH: plus 1
GJR: plus 1
SM: if read points 8 and 9 - treating as QNames, but they are NOT QNames
SP: reply should state sorry for any misunderstanding on this point, but these things aren't namespaces and then go through points to debunk comments
TH: reviewed a in context of b
SM: devil's advocate: when look at theses things, many people think/see QNames - can't do anything about that but keep hammering on difference
RM: problem is keying in on QNames
SM: datatype is not XSD QName - no processor should be exposing attributes --
RM: all just strings, not QNames
SP: reviewed spec for "namespace" in role document EXCEPT for references section itself
SM: good catch
SP: in clear - for time being - for everything they say due to misinterpretation
SM: if not vocabulary namespace what to call it?
SP: just "vocabulary"
RM: does it need a qualifier? vocabularies are
often defined in element and attribute names and these are about values - more
the RDF ontology
... grouping of related RDF concepts that has a label associated with it
SM: "taxonomy"
RM: XML Vocabularies will be quite different
SM: good point
RM: people think of language definition as vocabulary
SM: XML Vocabulary could be misleading, but use "vocabulary" throughout RDFa
RM: in Introduction: "set of values with certain semantics..."
SM: agree - intro needs update
... how to annotate vocab document in RDF to show what is rel and what is
ref
... if just big bag of terms, what is relevant where?
SP: sections in vocab itself, but should mechanize?
SM: document is RDFa annotated, but don't know how to categorize stuff
SP: Role DTD
RM: ontology does create structure
SM: can map ontology into RDFa
SP: doctype says "Transitional"
SM: Appendix C of Role Module - example RDF Role ontology - could lift something from that
trackbot, status?
<trackbot> This channel is not configured
RM: why would anyone be interested in what is in appendix C?
SM: wanted to include best practices document to provide a role vocabulary
RM: defining how to create additional roles, right?
SM: yes
RM: but we didn't
SM: RDFa is mapped to this
... if not, could be
SP: in example, values of rdf:resource is using a CURIE
<Steven> rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="wairole:region"
SM: look at top - DTD that defines entities, but doesn't work because don't get expanded
SP: should be &role
SM: DTD should control processing
... look at first RDF element - declares namespace, using CURIEs
RM: perhaps should get rid of it
GJR: used to be similar extention example in ARIA -- have to check latest ED
<Steven> Should be rdf:resource="&wairole;region" etc
SM: Roland, you think we should remove example
... objections?
TH: no
RM: no
SP: no
GJR: no
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#roles
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_general
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_general_role
SM: delete sentence and ARIA role definitions, because already in our vocab
GJR: wearing PF hat have no objection to that
SM: removing Appendix C
RM: if in, should be working version
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#m12n
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#a_impl_roles
GJR: think that it is covered by ARIA still
RM: dealt with all issues relating to role?
SP: another CURIE review has come in
SM: need to add to tracker
RM: response to comments from XML CG -- Shane?
<scribe> ACTION: Shane - reply to XML CG comments after review by group on list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/24-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
SM: Role Vocabularies in Introduction?
RM: what vocabulary is about - taxonomy, etc. something that sets the tone - marking as unfamiliar territory
SM: place to put that is paragraph 1 of section 3
RM: ok
... role about attribute - proper place to talk about defined values
SP: should we get someone from RDFa TF to provide
us with guidance so vocab document is also an OWL schema/taxonomy - extract
same triples as if OWL
... RDF Schemas, as well
RM: RDF Schema worthwhile investigating
SM: had RDFa TF review this document, and they
blessed it; question is how to scope values for machine processor knows what is
associated with what
... [has a brainstorm]
<ShaneM> how about the term "XHTML Terminology Vocabulary"
RM: discussed at last f2f -- SP has action item; would be useful to have for TPAC F2F
SP: include XForms?
SM: no
<Steven> RDFa/XHTML 1.1/Access/Role
RM: 1.1 plus extra bits (Role, CURIE, Access, RDFa)
SP: no XML Events and no XForms
... diff between 1.2 and 2.0 is new structuring stuff, general attributes
(href and src) and XML Events and XForms
RM: @target discussion still not resolved
GJR: same for @lang - still no assistive tech that cues off of xml:lang
RM: extracting from XHTML2 putting into 1.2
TH: compromise: go along with @target if drop @role (sarcastic smirk)
RM: please make formal proposal
TH: accept role, will discuss target thing
GJR: Tina, review last f2f minutes for @target discussion - think came close to what we needed
<scribe> ACTION: Tina - structure discussion on @target based on discussions at previous F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/24-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
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/SM/RM/ Succeeded: s/section C/appendix C/ Succeeded: s/etc/ etc/ Succeeded: s/if drop @role/if drop @role (sarcastic smirk)/ Found Scribe: Gregory Found ScribeNick: oedipus Default Present: Gregory_Rosmaita, Roland, ShaneM, +04670855aaaa, Tina, Steven Present: Gregory_Rosmaita Roland ShaneM Steven Tina Regrets: Alessio Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0017.html Got date from IRC log name: 24 Sep 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/24-xhtml-minutes.html People with action items: - reply shane steven tina WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]