See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 26 November 2008
previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minuts.html
Agenda Tracker: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/agenda
<scribe> Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
<scribe> ScribeNick: oedipus
<Roland> trackbot, start telcon
<trackbot> Meeting: XHTML2 Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 26 November 2008
<Roland> ta
<mgylling> thanks
<mgylling> yeah I am IPing
MG: Chief Technical Officer at DAISY consortium
(http://www.daisy.org) - sets international
standard for digital talking books - primarily blind and visually disabled;
been a NISO standard since 2002; now want to change code base by 2010
... would like to use XHTML2 as host grammar for series of profiles and hybrid
documents
<Steven> Sounds fantastic
MG: following XHTML2 since inception; one of the
most poetic of the specs i've read; here to help in any way i can
... DAISY has always used W3C SMIL for presentation
... SMIL3 has dedicated DAISY profile
SP: in what respect does XHTML2 meet DAISY's requirements; accessibility always major aim of XHTML2, but anything that sticks out as being particularly useful
MG: accessibility definitely one point; Role
Module will be made extensive use of
... splitting grammar into to parts: master authoring interface with host
grammar that is robust enough to act as host for profiles (example:
republishing print books) - 1 profile for leisure books, one for work and text
books, another for periodicals; need an underlying host grammar, and XHTML2 is
ideal for us; XHTML 1.1 too narrow for our basic needs in terms of structure;
XHTML2 is the "great cleanup" of XHTML 1.1
... XHTML2 modularity; concept model is stringent and structured enough for us
to reuse it
SP: have in past gotten a lot of criticism for changes made, so good to hear when people think got it right
MG: HTML5 makes possible for XHTML2 to remove compromises
SP: correct; haven't finished all discussions, but points of getting rid of compromises, now that HTML5 is being developed in W3C
Agenda Tracker: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/agenda
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions
RM: first 4 "pending review" are shane's
SM: Action 11 - draft policy statement about how we want to migrate modules; circulated and got feedback; i think my action is done (accept christina's comments) then what? needs to be in prominent location
RM: 2 options: 1. link-to from group page or 2. use wiki
SM: put on MarkUp front page -- needs more perceived stability than a wiki
RM: agree
MG: latest version can be found where?
SM: errata gathering for new edition - proposed
by RM in august
... is right way to do this is "if we identify errata, we will follow W3C
process defined here"
RM: seems fine to me - these things happen, here is pointer to how W3C process works
SM: finish action by adding christina's edits
<scribe> ACTION: Shane - get draft policy statement about migrating modules on MarkUp front page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/26-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - - get draft policy statement about migrating modules on MarkUp front page [on Shane McCarron - due 2008-12-03].
SM: updated typos pointed out by RM
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0027.html
SM: additional 1.0 in appendix B
RM: following applies to both; doctype declaration and lang differences between 1.0 and 1.1
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0023.html
SM: before or after?
RM: have it up front most useful - more people use 1.0 - that's why requested example for 1.0
SM: primary examples should be 1.0
RM: yes, shows all features, including @lang
SM: leave current action open - will add note as to what i am doing to it
RM: response to olivier's proposal?
SM: overcome by events; besides, olivier resigned
SP: friday is olivier's last day
RM: are we ready to issue XHTML Mime as new note with changes just discussed
SM: +1
RM: +1
GJR: plus 1 as amended
<Steven> +1
RM: anyone think should NOT push new note?
RESOLUTION: publish new XHTML Media Types (xhtml-mime) with edits agreed to at 2008-11-26 meeting
GJR: confusion between title: "XHTML Media Types" and shortname xhtml-mime
SM: 3 issues: long title, ref (in brackets in documents - use XHTML Mime in all specs) - url should be same as old URI - should be xhtml-mime
<Steven> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020801/
SP: old URL said note-xhtml-media-types
SM: shouldn't be called XHTML Mime, but XHTML Media Types
RESOLUTION: Shane will publish XHTML Mime Types
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0016.html
SM: need to ensure all references point to
xhtml-mime
... no errata on 1.0
SP: that's amazing
SM: errata in second edition
RESOLUTION: close action item 21 and begin request PER for 1.0
SM: if done same for 1.1 and Basic, can we push them too?
RM: need to check as WG
SM: reasonable to record that 1.1, Print, and Basic ready to go to PER Second Editions as soon as review finalized by RM
RM: waiting on feedback from yam
SP: in process
<Steven> I have the text
RESOLUTION: request XHTML 1.1 PER transition
RESOLUTION: request XHTML Basic 1.1 PER transition after SP adds text
SP: melinda gave ok?
SM: yes
SP: pointer?
SM: please ask melinda to send something to point to?
GJR: plus 1 to 1.1 Print PER
RESOLUTION: request XHTML Print 1.1 PER transition after receiving confirmation from melinda
<scribe> ACTION: Steven - request transition to PER for XHTML 1.1, XHTML Basic 1.1, and XHTML Print [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/26-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - - request transition to PER for XHTML 1.1, XHTML Basic 1.1, and XHTML Print [on Steven Pemberton - due 2008-12-03].
GJR: is that ok, SP?
SP: will be able to handle small tasks like this during december 2008
RM: just want to get request in - can schedule
transition call for january 2009
... XHTML 1.0 PER (Third Edition) ready for transition
SP: do we need a comments period? strictly speaking, no conformance changes, so should sail right through
SM: 1.0 always pointed to Mime Types document; needs to be reissued because of XHTML Mime Types; taken out duplicate material from 1.0
RESOLUTION: XHTML 1.0 PER (Third Edition) ready for request for transition
<scribe> ACTION: Steven - request transition for XHTML 1.0 PER (Third Edition) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/26-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - - request transition for XHTML 1.0 PER (Third Edition) [on Steven Pemberton - due 2008-12-03].
RM: Action 10 - GJR
GJR: no, i have to do data mining - will do after call
RM: action 14 - Shane?
SM: no progress
RM: 22 is done
GJR: action 22 now closed
SM: contacted mark baker about http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/26
... RFC left an opening which needs to be plugged
<Steven> 3236
SP: RFC 3236
<Steven> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt
GJR: action 26 updated with reference to RFC number and URI
SP: disposed of issues surrounding disposition of comments which claimed we rejected it - when we hadn't
SM: made change before call
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0028.html
SM: Access, Role, and CURIEs at same transition
call
... makes sense to do in one call -- Access and Role both point to CURIEs, so
have to change pointers if others go to CR
RM: based on transition call, may have to make editorial changes
SM: need to change Access and Role to point to CR version of CURIEs
draft roadmap for XHTML2 for discussion
Latest Draft(s) : 2002-08 [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/]
Last Editor's Draft: 2007-10-24 [http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-xhtml2-20071024/]
Last Call : 2009-03
CR : 2009-09
PR : 2009-12
REC : 2010-03
RM: have talked about LC for XHTML2 for 2009-03 -- will we try and do another draft before next call
SM: yes
RM: estimated date? can we get done before december?
SM: plate cleared for XHTML2
... big document, please re-read
RM: shoot for new draft this year; draft to review 2 weeks from today
<scribe> ACTION: Shane - prepare new draft of XHTML2 for review; have ready to at least walk WG through changes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/26-xhtml-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - - prepare new draft of XHTML2 for review; have ready to at least walk WG through changes [on Shane McCarron - due 2008-12-03].
SP: next face 2 face?
RM: february 2009
... should allow us to go through document and make decisions during february
meeting; next face2face devoted to XHTML2
RESOLUTION: next face2face (february 2009) will be dedicated to review and discussion of XHTML2
SP: 3 months of CR is optimistic
... CR at 2009-06 have more time for implementation work
RESOLUTION: change timeline for XHTML2 to start CR 2009-06
SP: @href everywhere and @src everywhere biggest
changes
... saw somewhere a javascript implementation of @href everywhere
RM: will amend WG roadmap on WG page
<Roland> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0018.html
RM: replied to comment
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0018.html
RM reply: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0020.html
<ShaneM> I obviously think the summary is perfect.
GJR: plus 1 to RM's suggestion: "I think you have accurately summarised the discussion. I agree that the sentiment seemed to be that we make DOM 2 the baseline for our requirement and that we would expect that DOM 3 will be compatible with DOM 2 so that we define XE 2 such that it works on either and does not require new features of DOM 3"
RM: dependency on DOM3 shaky - what do we want
from DOM3 events that we can't get from DOM2? would it make implementations
more difficult?
... DOM3 - essential addition: Qnames
... don't have direct dependence on Qnames - if they are available, great, but
if don't have req for Qnames, can we live without it and set DOM2 as baseline,
with assumption that DOM3 superset of DOM2 and would include all that is in
DOM2
SP: sounds good
RM: agreement that DOM2 basis to work with?
SP: using DOM3 because in pipleline - nothing in processing model of DOM3 we need not in DOM2
RM: conclusion we came to last week
... change XML Events 2 to say "DOM2 and later"
SP: need to report this to HTCG (hypertext coordination group) - this is the sort of change that may or may not affect other groups, should notify them
RM: note to HTC?
<scribe> ACTION: Roland - notify HTC of change of verbiage to "DOM2 or later" in XML Events 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/26-xhtml-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - - notify HTC of change of verbiage to \"DOM2 or later\" in XML Events 2 [on Roland Merrick - due 2008-12-03].
RM: other topics?
... for those celebrating holiday, happy holiday
ADJOURN
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/RM: put/SM: put/ Succeeded: s/that 1.1 and Basic/ that 1.1, Print, and Basic/ Succeeded: s/optomistic/optimistic/ Found Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita Found ScribeNick: oedipus Default Present: ShaneM, [IPcaller], Gregory_Rosmaita, Steven, Roland, mgylling Present: Gregory_Rosmaita Markus_Gylling Roland ShaneM Steven mgylling Regrets: Tina_Holcombe Alessio_Cartocci Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Nov/0024.html Found Date: 26 Nov 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/11/26-xhtml-minutes.html People with action items: - change htc notify of request roland shane steven transition verbiage WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]