- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:33:52 +0000
- To: public-xhtml2@w3.org
aloha!
minutes from today's XHTML2 Working Group Teleconference are available
as hypertext at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html
and as an IRC log at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-irc
as usual, please report any errors, omissions, misattributions and/or
clarifications by repllying to this announcement on-list...
note that the following 6 action items were assigned at today's telecon:
* ACTION: Steven - request CR Transition for Role Module
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/30
* ACTION: Steven - request CR transition for Access Module
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/31
* ACTION: Shane to update XML Events 2 draft so it has a diff
mark to previous public working draft AND to the previous
recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/32
* ACTION: Shane to write a quick summary of the position w.r.t.
DOM2 vs. DOM3 in XML Events 2
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/33
* ACTION: Roland - draft roadmap for XHTML2 to discuss
reasonableness at next call [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/34
* ACTION: Mark - ask XForms about Access Module concerns
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/35
gregory.
_________________________________________________________________
- DRAFT -
XHTML2 Working Group Teleconference
19 Nov 2008
Agenda
See also: IRC log
Attendees
Present
Alessio, Gregory_Rosmaita, Roland, ShaneM, Tina, markbirbeck
Regrets
Steven
Chair
Roland
Scribe
Gregory_Rosmaita
Contents
* Topics
1. Agenda Review, News and New Items
2. State of Documents/Deliverables
3. XML Events 2 progress towards last call
4. Upcoming Calls
5. Roadmap for XHTML2
6. Lingering Items
7. Action Item Review
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 19 November 2008
<scribe> Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
<scribe> ScribeNick: oedipus
RM: regrets from Steven who is sick
Agenda Review, News and New Items
<markbirbeck> on my way...just be a minute...
<alessio> hi all :)
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/agenda
SM: disposition of comments for Access and Role are done and are up -
just updated today
RM: all necessary to move forward
SM: for Access and Role, yes; CURIEs already in process
State of Documents/Deliverables
<alessio> Tina, I'm just writing a post for italian community about
your XHTML article on "The Developer's Archive"
RM: SP sent transition requests; nothing scheduled yet as for
publication; waiting for commm team
<Tina> alessio: excellent. Thank you.
RM: Role and Access Modules in same state; WG voted to forward; drafts
ready and disposition of comments are also ready
<scribe> ACTION: Steven - request CR Transition for Role Module
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - - request CR Transition for Role Module
[on Steven Pemberton - due 2008-11-26].
<scribe> ACTION: Steven - request CR transition for Access Module
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - - request CR transition for Access
Module [on Steven Pemberton - due 2008-11-26].
XML Events 2 progress towards last call
RM: WG voted to send XML Events 2 to LC
... any comments on Events document?
... do we need to resolve outstanding actions?
... Action 1 is first: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/1
<Roland> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/1
<ShaneM> ACTION: Shane to update XML Events 2 draft so it has a diff
mark to previous public working draft AND to the previous
recommendation [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Update XML Events 2 draft so it has a
diff mark to previous public working draft AND to the previous
recommendation [on Shane McCarron - due 2008-11-26].
RM: only way can write need to be done before any other event fired -
does it make significant difference for last call?
SM: be ok to put in comment perhaps -- not an open issue - not from
reviewer -- WG not sure if on right track
RM: could put in as comment that welcome feedback on that particular
statement
AC: agree
RM: reviewing actions on me: action 1 "- write to DOM3 guys on when
registration will occur and when events can be fired; coordinate
deeper discussion"
... can we put comment into spec saying welcome feedback on timing or
do we need something more definitive
MB: something we raised ourselves;
RM: action on me was to open dialog on subject with DOM3 people
... another topic - DOM3 going to LC by end of first quarter of next
year; should re-examine to ensure XML Events work in DOM2 and DOM3
SM: isn't that the issue: we need qnames, and if so, we need DOM3
Events?
MB: could do mapping at implementation layer; DOM2 doesn't have
qnames, but layer on top could
RM: do we need qnames - if have event with qnames, can use, if not,
then don't use
SM: do you believe that DOM2 events permit the definition of arbitrary
events
MB: those with colon?
SM: in general - defined collection of event tokens that can't be
extended
RM: did that with XML Events 1
SM: can you put colon in name - i say no because is a token
MB: one way to go is to follow RM's lead - depends on architecture
which to use; if use DOM2, qnames not supported (should be explicitly
stated)
SM: needed to write portable documents
MB: could map it
SM: how would approach?
MB: XML Events 2 layer is goig to have to have sub-code written to
have calls made to DOM2 or DOM3 -- something underneath, core code,
will have to do registration of events
... given system self-contained xyz:event mapped to xyz_event no one
would be any the wiser
SM: ok
MB: self-contained system; weak point - XForms has xforms-submit but
can't have xf:submit then
SM: MB's approach clean - have to put in normative requirement on DOM2
events, and no normative req on DOM3 events; problem of timing; can't
rely on DOM3
MB: we don't have to do mapping; implementation does it
SM: "must behave as if..." is all that is needed
... implementations based on DOM2 events MUST behave as if specified
by qnames; the exact method is implementation-defined
MB: ok
SM: where in spec to put comment?
... think needs to be in definition of event attribute
RM: agree - in Events part of spec
<alessio> +1
SM: listener elements and DOM3 Event Mutation
... does DOM3 have all interfaces we are exposing? all subjects in
handler module and bubbling stuff - default target, etc. -- 4
potential phases in DOM2 - have to clarify situation vis a vis DOM3
... phases is ok -- we define what each term means in the spec
MB: one level up events are ok
SM: others of interests: DispatchEvents, etc. - those are our
definitions; style propagation and prevent default already in DOM2
MB: on DOM3 question, are they still considering using qnames?
RM: yes, although faction oppose
SM: interestingly, the last draft of DOM3 Events, from 2007, doesn't
contain term qname
... does have NamespaceURI as attribute
... don't use qualified name either
<ShaneM>
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Events/events.html#Events-Event
SM: events interface in DOM3 defines addEventListener and
addEventListenerNS - that is interesting and shows way towards
mapping; if interface like this, no mapping needed, if not, know what
to do
MB: by spliting namespace out into seperate property and not using
qnames, trying to ensure baackwards compatibility -- use local name,
may not be namespace present
... should we be doing the same
SM: not needed for our users
MB: assuming that using qnames is more convenient than using 2
attributes, one with namespace and one with type
SM: namespace prefix going may be used hundreds of times -- burden on
author
... foo:bar implies a namespace
MB: does imply that alogrithm foo:bar becoming foo_bar is wrong; in
DOM2 becomes just bar
... initEvent method receives bar; if eventsNS receive bar plus the
foo
... note needs to state: be careful, if use DOM2 foo will be ignorned
and foo:bar and foo_bar will map to same event
SM: approach might work, but could also say - if ontop of DOM2, should
treat foo:bar and bar identically
MB: 2 methods: one with namespace property and one without
SM: latest editor's draft?
... define spec on our side that allows our constituents to write
applications; no idea what underlying implementation is
RM: DOMHasFeature will tell you that
SM: XML Events 2 not scripting, but declarative through use of
handlers
... can't serve diff documents depending upon underlying document type
-- at least, i wouldn't want to
MB: what is use of qnames -- in local files, defining my events, don't
need qnames; become useful when people write specs xf:done
SM: good point;
MB: author has control of document
SM: sometimes
MB: use qualified names with multiple markup
SM: if constituency is basic author, not going to use qnames for own
events
RM: this is language-designer concern only?
SM: do we want to tell users "don't use qnames for your own defined
events"
... "If you use qualified names, in some implementations, they may
collide"
MB: not convinced there is a perfect solution to this; what is it that
DOM3 event designers seeing when took this approach; AJAX library
fires event when initialized and make dojo:done - can i register that?
... perhaps dojo:done should be different that yahoo:done
RM: how do we move forward? next steps?
MB: need to ascertain from DOM what were thinking - can attach event
with one technique and can fire event with another
... what is effect we are attempting to achieve
... at script level could register event using AddEventListenerNS
... also generic AddEventListener - if author writes DOM2 code to
register event, another author may write a DOM3 firing of event using
different methods; may be why said xyz_bar same as foo:bar
... doesn't bring us any closer to next step, though...
RM: perhaps have to step back and ask question: "Do we think we should
accomodate DOM2 events or move forward and use DOM3 events"
... should we tie ourselves to DOM3?
MB: i would no, interim step here -- XForms uses DOM2 events, ended up
with if and for which migrated to XML Events
... reason for qnames addition, was to support future when DOM3
finalized; follow evolution of DOM2 events into DOM3 -- if can't
figure out solution, should leave out qnames for now -- would not want
to be tied to DOM3 Events because may not be done for 4 years
RM: other thoughts?
SM: can go back to DOM2 Events; could potentially provide guidance -
intent to support qnames via DOM3 Events in future, and devs might
want to keep that in mind
... unfortunate Steven not here; would like to hear his input before
make decision
<alessio> true
RM: thinking about the issues won't harm us, only benefit us
... soften question about DOM3 - should support DOM3, but requiring
DOM3 different; capable of supporting DOM3 in compatability mode from
earlier versions
... add new features from capability point of view; can support some
DOM3 features when deployed
SM: like that story-line -- trying to get XML Events 2 deployed now
RM: entire WG should take time to review this -- anyone want to write
up proposal and send to mailing list to capture the position we
reached today, then revisit at call in 2 week's time
[complete silence]
RM: anyone want to try and summarize where we just go to?
SM: can do in an email
RM: thanks, shane
Upcoming Calls
RM: next week is thanksgiving - will there be enough attendees?
SM: available
TH: available
AC: yes
MB: no
GJR: yes
<alessio> :)
RM: i will - SP has actions to clear before he takes off in december -
will ask him to clear as much as can before december
... leave decision on DOM2 and DOM3 to meeting 2 weeks from today -
Mark will you be here?
MB: no, unavailable
<ShaneM> ACTION: Shane to write a quick summary of the position w.r.t.
DOM2 vs. DOM3 in XML Events 2 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Write a quick summary of the position
w.r.t. DOM2 vs. DOM3 in XML Events 2 [on Shane McCarron - due
2008-11-26].
RM: can you make sure you get your views and opinions onto emailing
list so can make decision
MB: yes
Roadmap for XHTML2
RM: gregory been pushing; believe agreed should get new draft out;
what were we waiting for
SM: editing cycles
RM: like to get to LC by end of first quarter of next year?
SM: a year ago was next public draft would be LC --
RM: think at june f2f decided to publish public draft
SM: need to get to it
RM: when can we get a draft out? by moritorium - next month
SM: moritorium?
RM: normally one during holiday period
... can we get another draft by 2 weeks
SM: everything else done, so have more time to work on XHTML2 and XML
Events
RM: will try and draft a roadmap for XHTML2 that we can then discuss
as to its reasonableness at next week's call
<scribe> ACTION: Roland - draft roadmap for XHTML2 to discuss
reasonableness at next call [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - - draft roadmap for XHTML2 to discuss
reasonableness at next call [on Roland Merrick - due 2008-11-26].
XHTML Mime
SM: addressed all of opera's issues; ready to go
... have a free weekend, so expect to get work done
Lingering Items
RM: PERs for 1.1 (dependent upon having new note on mime); continue
with modularization
SM: all done -- PERs ready - just need date; depends on whether can
get CR stuff in and if can do anything when steven gone for a month
RM: i will discuss PERs with steven
SM: happy to have meeting with RM and SP to come up with work plan for
December
Action Item Review
SM: action 4 - replying to forms content on access module
<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/4
SM: replied formally to TAG on 18 October 2008; not acknowledged;
think can close with a "no response"
RM: MarkB, could you bring this up in XForms call?
<scribe> ACTION: Mark - ask XForms about Access Module concerns
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - - ask XForms about Access Module
concerns [on Mark Birbeck - due 2008-11-26].
<ShaneM>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2008Oct/0011.html
SM: may not have been responded because didn't submit LC to right list
- sent to www-html not to our either of public lists
... Mark, please ask them to look at the post referenced above
... with respect to action 4 will put in link to related email, but
think should close
RM: agree - action was to reply
TH: issue on roadmap - 4 different types of list comment
RM: can we clear in 5 minutes
TH: initial reaction is to suggest that we say "thank you for your
opinion, but we don't agree with you" don't think should go from
specific set of elements to generic set of elements
RM: last week we said we had 4; feeling was 3 is good, but is NL
necessary
TH: need more, not less
... NL is a generic list of links with specific semantics which UL
doesn't have
RM: could use any of other 3 list types with role="navigation"
SM: NL implies certain behavior and certain semantics about content;
NL implies orderedness that UL does not, and OL is inappropriate
construct for navigation
GJR: plus 1 on keeping NL
<_alessio> +1 too
MB: don't like NL -- my problem is why stop at NL, why not video list
-- ability to turn anything into hyperlink in XHTML2 hard to figure
out the semantics;
... understand why added NL, but think that role made superfluous
TH: semantics, traditionally, has been placed in element type name;
UL, OL, DL, and generic list with role="navigation"
MB: what is generic list?
SM: not thinking of adding generic list
MB: either use semantics to clarify lists (people tend to use @class
to do that)
<Roland_> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-nav-element
RM: HTML5 dealt with this with nav element
TH: like to see "inline list", but need to look at our philosophy;
strictly speaking could end up with 1 element and 3 attributes; big
step away from precedent
MB: guiding prinicple of XHTML2 is "less is more" -- do talk about not
having just DIVs and SPANs, but ensuring hooks in language so that
people can add own semantics - that's what @role introduced;
TH: can extend as needed in XHTML M12n framework - extend XHTML via
namespaces
<_alessio> I'm not against nl but I see some warnings for nested lists
MB: you are saying that preferred extension method should be elements;
have to write special module for extension
<_alessio> for example what about an unordered list with his
role="navigation" inside an nl?
MB: other method is use attributes and allow identifier in there -
with role and RDFa used RDF identifiers or URIs to merge with semantic
web
GJR: there are XML derived modules for shipping addresses and such
<ShaneM> sorry - I have to run
RM: need to examine HTML5 additions
<_alessio> agree
<markbirbeck> bye...have to go to XForms call
RM: good to document philosophy behind XHTML2
GJR: good place to start is verbiage in spec
TH: can't avoid what authors doing
RM: need to develop policy
... should spend time thinking about a policy to apply would be useful
... prefer do on overall approach on how we deal with issues instead
of one-off solutions and ad hoc solutions
<_alessio> bye! :)
s/good place to start is with the extant Introduction/good place to
start is with the extant Introduction
(http:\/\/www.w3.org\/MarkUp\/2007\/ED-xhtml2-20071024\/introduction.h
tml#s_intro_whatisxhtml2)
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Mark - ask XForms about Access Module concerns [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Roland - draft roadmap for XHTML2 to discuss
reasonableness at next call [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Shane to update XML Events 2 draft so it has a diff mark
to previous public working draft AND to the previous recommendation
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Shane to write a quick summary of the position w.r.t.
DOM2 vs. DOM3 in XML Events 2 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Steven - request CR transition for Access Module
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Steven - request CR Transition for Role Module [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 16:34:33 UTC