See also: IRC log
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]
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
Shane: I should have the contract finished this week, will post details after that
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Roland: Are any of their comments no longer valid against the latest draft?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
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
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
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]