Reviews (XML Base)

Roland: XML Base Second Edition

Steven: need to review because we reference it
... should ensure is still ok for our needs

yam: process for going to Proposed Edited Rec?

Steven: No normative changes, don't need to go back to LC, if have errata, apply to spec, then proposed edited recommendation; should be NO normative changes -- just clarifications and errata
... I can look at XML Base -- what is deadline?

Roland: 30 June 2008

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to review XML Base by 30 June [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/02-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]

CSS Namespaces Module

Roland: So we now have a formal issue, is that right?

Steven: Well it turns out that the WG hadn't discussed it, and it was the editors who had decided to reject us
... so we are in limbo still, waiting for a reponse from CSS WG

Steven: I had a separate discussion with CSS WG that I didn't copy to XHTML2 list because according to charter, they are member-only, and I quoted member-only text so couldn't forward to XHTML2 list

Steven: You have to go to CSS lists to read my comments; last exchange with chair was last friday, so if don't hear anything by this friday, will ping them

Roland: So we are waiting for official response from CSS working group

Steven:Also mentioned at HCG, but only very briefly

Roland: I saw, though there is no discussion in minutes

FtF

Shane: I should have the contract finished this week, will post details after that

CURIEs

Steven: So the TAG comments came in before I sent the last call

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar/0014.html

Shane: So we need a WG response to these. The minutes of the meeting where they discussed this are worth reading

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes#item02

Roland: Are any of their comments no longer valid against the latest draft?

Shane: I think so
... for instance a comment about the RDFa spec

Steven: Good to see "We agree RDF languages need this ... it shd be allowed to proceed"
... Shall I draft a reply for the group to consider?

Roland: I think it should be split into several replies, one on syntax, one on background, requirements, ...

Shane: Some of their issues seem not to be to the point
... or miss something
... Unfortunately this blocks the role module

Steven: Specs are allowed to be one step out of sync

Roland: Is role ready to go?

Shane: Yes

Gregory: We (WAI) arranged a special meeting with HTML5 people to discuss Aria, and no one from HTML5 turned up, so we are ignoring them for the moment

Shane: Anyway, role is ready to go

Roland: Then let's go

Shane: We should update the public WD of Curies so we can refer to it

RESOLUTION: Produce a new public WD of CURIEs

Roland: Take role to last call?

[Agreement]

RESOLUTION: Take role to last call

<scribe> ACTION: Shane to update public WD of CURIEs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/02-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to organise last call of role [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/02-xhtml-minutes.html#action04]

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to draft a reply to TAG comments on CURIEs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/02-xhtml-minutes.html#action05]

Roland: We will discuss the comments next week

Steven: I will try to attend, but I'll be at a conference

XHTML Basic

Steven: I sent a draft transition request to Roland, Shane and Chris Lilley, and spotted two editorial bugs in the spec, which should be fixed today
... I'd be happy for an OK on the transition request, and I will send it off

M12N transition

Roland: Status?

Steven: I have sent a revised transition request with answers to Steve Bratt's question to Steve Bratt, and I am awaiting a reply

Media type

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Mar/0086.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Mar/0071.html

Shane: Olivier is asking some questions which we should answer
... I don't think the mime document should mention HTML5 since there is no normative spec

Gregory: The HTML5 WD has huge holes
... and is nowhere near to being complete

Shane: Olivier supplies a nugget of useful data
... he asks if the note can be a rec

Steven: It brings information from other specs together, it doesn't need to be a rec

Shane: He asks if we can make the compatibility guidelines clearer
... I am trying to recast them

<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xhtmlmime-20080331/

Roland: I would like us to have a document that follows the guidelines as an example

Steven: We need to point out that they are guidelines, and not requirements

<oedipus> Steven, were you referring to A.7? -- lang attribute important for natural language switching in speech output and braille output (every DAMN country has its own braille code)

<oedipus> same with screen magnifiers -- need to get the right charset for the lang declaration

<steven> OK Oediupus, thanks. And do they do xml:lang?

<oedipus> some do the xml:lang, such as Orca (screen-reader braille-output for GNOME)

<oedipus> don't have definitive list, but will check on xml:lang support especially in open source community

<oedipus> GJR: commercial assistive tech vendors rely on "lang" because it is far more likely to be present (so they assume) than xml:lang

Shane: validators do something with @lang
... and I'm not sure what we should do about it
... especially with RDFa
... since XHTML1.1+RDFa does not have @lang, only @xml:lang

Steven: The problem only arises if you are unable to tell the UA the language of the document

Shane: The other issue is about referencing style elements
... I think we should say not to use XML stylesheet declarations

Shane: Shall we keep the recommendation to use XML stylesheets?

Steven: I don't think we need to anymore
... people who want to deliver it as XML know that they are there, but UAs that understand the namespace are going to do the stylesheets anyway

Shane: I will update the draft and we can discuss it next week.

[ADJOURN]