XHTML2 WG Weekly Teleconference -- 8 Aug 2007

Held over...

This was discussed briefly in the last call. There is a "base" element already.

Shane is afraid that adding xml:base will mean we need to issue a new XHTML 1.x.

Roland says we have two options: go through a rec process for M12N etc. or just do it in XHTML 2.

Carried forward.

Shane suggests that we need to take the existing schema implementation for xhtml m12n 1 and tweak it.

<scribe> ACTION: Shane to start implementing xml schema for xhtml 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/08-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: Roland to respond to UWA WG and say yes, we are producing a schema. We do not yet have a schedule. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/08-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]

Shane thinks that reply is accurate.

The question is: do we really want to get rid of profile? GRDDL really wants to use it. Was the original deprecation of it in XHTML 1 a good idea?

The profile attribute seeme to be used by the microformat community too

Shane thinks we should expand the collection of "rel" values to permit microformat relationship. We should ask people who care?

Carry this forward as a future agenda item "Use cases for a profile attribute" or some such.

Skipped for this week.

<Roland_> Prose vs implementation

Who is the audience for this? What is hanging fire?

Shane says XHTML 1.1 needs updating and needs to use XML Schema, and XHTML Print could use a schema implementation too.

Other topic is "what takes precedence, prose or implementation?"

Shane thinks prose / abstract module definitions take precedence.

RDFa task force is public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Went over a bunch of things about our outstanding work. No resolutions.

- DRAFT -