XHTML2 Working Group Teleconference -- 26 Nov 2008

<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

Introductions & Brief Items

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

Oustanding Actions

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].

XHTML-Mime

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

Action 21

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].

Additional Completed Actions

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

Timescale for XHTML2

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

XML Events 2

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

- DRAFT -

XHTML2 Working Group Teleconference

26 Nov 2008

Attendees

Contents