Agenda Review & New Business/Announcements

TP Registration: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Aug/0000.html

RM: TPAC - who has registered

GJR: will probably not be able to make it due to health reasons

RM: i have registered

<ShaneM> I have not registered, and will not be attending

TH: i have not

RM: remote participation

GJR: probably

<ShaneM> I will be able to join via phone all days

TH: should be able to attend by phone - intend to join via phone all days

GJR: all days and times possible

RM: SP requested speaker phone, so we can do calls

GJR: can always do the skype thing as we did in italy

RM: not sure about alessio or mark

<Steven> Sorry, lost track of time

SP: since turnout will be low, requested telecon phone
... Roland, Mark, Steven - yes; Alessio - maybe; GJR: more unlikely than probable
... low attendence, so try to do as last time, via teleconferencing

Actions

RM: have a lot that hang around -- would like to use tracker to clean up outdated and overdue issues

<Roland> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)

http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc

Tina's Primer

http://www.dev-archive.net/articles/xhtml.html

TH: won't publish new draft until have all new info folded in

RM: working on media type heuristics?

<Steven> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/17-xhtml-minutes

TH: only piece waiting for from XHTML WG

SP: didn't give myself an action to do that

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to send examples of media type heuristics to Tina [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/24-xhtml-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

trackbot, associate this channhel with #xhtml

<trackbot> Sorry, oedipus, I don't understand 'trackbot, associate this channhel with #xhtml'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

M12n Request

SP: should be done next week

RM: before or after call?

SP: send update a.s.a.p - team calls cancelled last 2 weeks

trackbot, associate this channhel with IA_XHTML2()9:45AM

<trackbot> Sorry, oedipus, I don't understand 'trackbot, associate this channhel with IA_XHTML2()9:45AM'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

RM: Shane - review requests?

SM: Role is fine with me

Role Module

SP: resolved to go transition, but then received new comments; no revised version of spec since comments came in

SM: resolved not to request CR until CURIE ready to go to CR, and then needed to wait for TAG to give us comments on CURIE
... don't remember comments on Role

RM: link to comments?

<Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JulSep/0009.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JulSep/0009.html

references: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xhtml-role-20080407/ draft

RM: work through these now?

SM: haven't read yet

GJR: me neither

RM: walk through them quickly

(1) First, we congratulate the XHTML Working Group for providing a useful and clear namespace document for the namespace

http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/

We wish more groups responsible for namespace did so well by the users of their namespaces.

RM: no action needed

(2) That said, we think the namespace document could be improved by the addition of some more information. A document date would be helpful, and the identity of those responsible for the text of the document, and for the namespace, could be stated more explicitly. (From the fact that "The XHTML specifications are developed by the W3C XHTML 2 Working Group as part of the W3C HTML Activity", it may be thought to follow that it is the XHTML 2 Working Group whic

SM: vocab is NOT A NAMESPACE DOCUMENT!!!

SP: that's what people call it

SM: but not a namespace URI, but vocab URI - namespaces declare elements and attributes
... cultural change which should start here
... why we never call it a namespace

SP: reply should be "please to not consider as a namepace"

<Roland> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/

RM: thought talking about vocab

<Steven> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/

<Steven> It calls itself a namesapce

SM: we are

RM: part of vocab doc is "namespace"
... change title?

SP: will do right now once we agree what to substitute

first 3 paragraphs of vocab doc:

This is a vocabulary collection utilized by XHTML Family modules and document types using XHTML Modularization, including XHTML Role and XHTML + RDFa as defined in rdfa-syntax.

The XHTML specifications are developed by the W3C XHTML 2 Working Group as part of the W3C HTML Activity.

For more information about XML, please refer to the Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 specification. For more information about XML namespaces, please refer to the Namespaces in XML specification.

SM: agree that vocab def document could be better, so need to fix

RM: clarify vocabulary versus namespace

SM: vocabulary not in TR space
... can change vocab when needed

SP: because not namespace, don't have to follow rules on namespaces

RM: would be very helpful to state how to manage this type of resource
... understanding what will happen with it

SM: elements that are in it won't be removed, but others will be added over time

RM: reasonable
... evolve policy - nothing will be removed, things will be defined, refined and added

RESOLUTION: policy for vocab document: nothing will be removed; things contained may be more clearly defined/refined, and others added

SM: point 4 - don't like CURIEs - could be done with QNames
... 2 points to make: QNames don't belong in attributes and QNames do not map to URIs but URIs and values; we need URIs

RM: sounds reasonable

GJR: plus 1

(5) If it's desired to provide the better validation and easier access to the namespace binding which would be provided by using the xsd:QName type, but nevertheless not to rule out the use of CURIEs which are not QNames, then we suggest the best way to define the role attribute right now would be to define (1) a union of QName and CURIE (in that order), and (2) a list of values from that union, and to make the latter the type of the role attribute. That wou

SM: talking about CURIEs - are they addressing the prefix?
... we provided XSD datatype for CURIE which is similar to QNames and should resolve their issues - point them at where datatype defined and how used by role

scribe's note: comments refer to: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xhtml-role-20080407/

SM: probably wasn't updated against latest M12n draft at time of review
... love to have them to review, so point them to latest ED

RM: does def of role attribute depends on CURIE i think is question

SM: comment 7 - conflation problem again
... thinking about it in context of QNames, and we don't address QNames - comments relevant to QNames, not CURIEs

RM: answer to 7 - these are CURIEs and not QNames and the rules are different

TH: plus 1

GJR: plus 1

SM: if read points 8 and 9 - treating as QNames, but they are NOT QNames

SP: reply should state sorry for any misunderstanding on this point, but these things aren't namespaces and then go through points to debunk comments

TH: reviewed a in context of b

SM: devil's advocate: when look at theses things, many people think/see QNames - can't do anything about that but keep hammering on difference

RM: problem is keying in on QNames

SM: datatype is not XSD QName - no processor should be exposing attributes --

RM: all just strings, not QNames

SP: reviewed spec for "namespace" in role document EXCEPT for references section itself

SM: good catch

SP: in clear - for time being - for everything they say due to misinterpretation

SM: if not vocabulary namespace what to call it?

SP: just "vocabulary"

RM: does it need a qualifier? vocabularies are often defined in element and attribute names and these are about values - more the RDF ontology
... grouping of related RDF concepts that has a label associated with it

SM: "taxonomy"

RM: XML Vocabularies will be quite different

SM: good point

RM: people think of language definition as vocabulary

SM: XML Vocabulary could be misleading, but use "vocabulary" throughout RDFa

RM: in Introduction: "set of values with certain semantics..."

SM: agree - intro needs update
... how to annotate vocab document in RDF to show what is rel and what is ref
... if just big bag of terms, what is relevant where?

SP: sections in vocab itself, but should mechanize?

SM: document is RDFa annotated, but don't know how to categorize stuff

SP: Role DTD

RM: ontology does create structure

SM: can map ontology into RDFa

SP: doctype says "Transitional"

SM: Appendix C of Role Module - example RDF Role ontology - could lift something from that

trackbot, status?

<trackbot> This channel is not configured

RM: why would anyone be interested in what is in appendix C?

SM: wanted to include best practices document to provide a role vocabulary

RM: defining how to create additional roles, right?

SM: yes

RM: but we didn't

SM: RDFa is mapped to this
... if not, could be

SP: in example, values of rdf:resource is using a CURIE

<Steven> rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="wairole:region"

SM: look at top - DTD that defines entities, but doesn't work because don't get expanded

SP: should be &role

SM: DTD should control processing
... look at first RDF element - declares namespace, using CURIEs

RM: perhaps should get rid of it

GJR: used to be similar extention example in ARIA -- have to check latest ED

<Steven> Should be rdf:resource="&wairole;region" etc

SM: Roland, you think we should remove example
... objections?

TH: no

RM: no

SP: no

GJR: no

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#roles

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_general

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_general_role

SM: delete sentence and ARIA role definitions, because already in our vocab

GJR: wearing PF hat have no objection to that

SM: removing Appendix C

RM: if in, should be working version

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#m12n

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#a_impl_roles

GJR: think that it is covered by ARIA still

RM: dealt with all issues relating to role?

SP: another CURIE review has come in

SM: need to add to tracker

RM: response to comments from XML CG -- Shane?

<scribe> ACTION: Shane - reply to XML CG comments after review by group on list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/24-xhtml-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

SM: Role Vocabularies in Introduction?

RM: what vocabulary is about - taxonomy, etc. something that sets the tone - marking as unfamiliar territory

SM: place to put that is paragraph 1 of section 3

RM: ok
... role about attribute - proper place to talk about defined values

SP: should we get someone from RDFa TF to provide us with guidance so vocab document is also an OWL schema/taxonomy - extract same triples as if OWL
... RDF Schemas, as well

RM: RDF Schema worthwhile investigating

SM: had RDFa TF review this document, and they blessed it; question is how to scope values for machine processor knows what is associated with what
... [has a brainstorm]

XHTML 1.2

<ShaneM> how about the term "XHTML Terminology Vocabulary"

RM: discussed at last f2f -- SP has action item; would be useful to have for TPAC F2F

SP: include XForms?

SM: no

<Steven> RDFa/XHTML 1.1/Access/Role

RM: 1.1 plus extra bits (Role, CURIE, Access, RDFa)

SP: no XML Events and no XForms
... diff between 1.2 and 2.0 is new structuring stuff, general attributes (href and src) and XML Events and XForms

RM: @target discussion still not resolved

GJR: same for @lang - still no assistive tech that cues off of xml:lang

RM: extracting from XHTML2 putting into 1.2

TH: compromise: go along with @target if drop @role (sarcastic smirk)

RM: please make formal proposal

TH: accept role, will discuss target thing

GJR: Tina, review last f2f minutes for @target discussion - think came close to what we needed

<scribe> ACTION: Tina - structure discussion on @target based on discussions at previous F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/24-xhtml-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/SM/RM/
Succeeded: s/section C/appendix C/
Succeeded: s/etc/ etc/
Succeeded: s/if drop @role/if drop @role (sarcastic smirk)/
Found Scribe: Gregory
Found ScribeNick: oedipus
Default Present: Gregory_Rosmaita, Roland, ShaneM, +04670855aaaa, Tina, Steven
Present: Gregory_Rosmaita Roland ShaneM Steven Tina
Regrets: Alessio
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Sep/0017.html
Got date from IRC log name: 24 Sep 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/24-xhtml-minutes.html
People with action items: - reply shane steven tina

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.