XHTML2 Working Group Teleconference -- 02 Jun 2009

<trackbot> Date: 02 June 2009

<mgylling> [hmm, got disconnected]

In any case he is not yet online

though I spoke to him an hour or so ago

<mgylling> ... and heres another +1 for relaxng

Well, it's good to have some Ralxing expertise around

Masayasu used to be our relax expert

<mgylling> I know relaxng quite well too (consider it my second tongue after swedish)

<MoZ> what happened ?

We're dropping the call until Shane arrives

staying in the IRC channel

<MoZ> ok please ping me when you're back so

<Tina> ShaneM: Steven is on a school run, I believe; I'll call in when lunch is done.

<ShaneM> thanks

<alessio> hi all, wasn't it at 13.00 UTC?

<ShaneM> yes

<ShaneM> Steven is tied up for a little while. roland, what's your plan

<alessio> ok... thx shane

<Tina> ... my phone is broken, again. I'm IRC only, folks.

back

<ShaneM> hey steven. some of us are here - just waiting on you and roland.

Given the number of issues we need to review in order to resubmit the PERs, I request that we schedule another 4 hour vF2F meeting. I suggest we try to do it Tuesday, 2 June at noon UTC: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2009&month=6&day=2&hour=12&min=0&sec=0&p1=136&p2=179&p3=215

We are starting, MoZ, Alessio, Tina, mgylling

<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml1-issues-20090527.html

<scribe> Scribe: Steven

Shane: I reduced the list to 11 issues
... We received a formal objection from Ian Hickson

Steven: About text/html?

Shane: Yes, he doesn't like it

Steven: I believe that doesn't have to be a show-stopper

Shane: And there is Bjoern's mail, that wasn't sent to us

<Tina> ShaneM: do we have a link to the formal objection?

Steven: I haven't checked it rigorously, but I believe that points to issues he had already sent us
... but we should make sure
... that all his issues made it into the issue tracker

Shane: Agreed
... So we have 11 issues that we should look at

Issue 8407

Shane: I replied to this ages ago
... anyway appx C is gone

Steven: Who, quite honestly is going to misunderstand this?

Shane: We replied, he didn't answer, what do we do?

Steven: we have followed process. Issue closed

Issue 6227

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml1-issues-20090527.html#ssec2

Shane: Marked as closed, but
... we advise against the XML declaration
... and say use UTF 8 or a higher-level protocol
... he asks a question, Steven replied, he didn't respond. Therefore we have met process.

Steven: Issue closed

Issue 703

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml1-issues-20090527.html#ssec3

Shane: This is an error in the DTD
... The DTD has been fixed
... is it OK for a PER?

Steven: Yes, it doesn't break any browsers, it was a clear error

Issue 6674

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml1-issues-20090527.html#ssec4

<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528

Shane: there is an updated editors' draft

<ShaneM> Updated references section is at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528/#refs

Shane: I have split the references into informative and normative
... need an OK from you
... POSIX is for MAY, SHOULD etc
... there was a formal objection because the objector wanted us to point to 5th edition of XML
... but we decided against that because of the change to name token

Steven: I remember having that discussion
... isn't 5th edition just v1.1 back ported to 1.0?

Shane: Regardless

Steven: We deliberately made this decision, so I think we should defend it at the transition call
... I mean, the real thing we are trying to achieve here is adding schemas

Shane: Anyone object to pointing to 4th edition?

Moz?

Shane: we refer to 2e of namespaces, an obvious improvement
... Are there any of the informative refs things that have to be normative? (I will update the ref to M12N)
... some of them aren't even referenced

Steven: Chop 'em out then.
... they may be leftovers from appx C

Shane: Fixing them now
... three left, MIME, MOD, and MathML

Steven: Looks good
... closes this issue

Shane: I will reply

Issue 9110

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml1-issues-20090527.html#ssec5

<alessio> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2002OctDec/0050.html

Shane: Tobias asked us to fix it in XHTML2
... but Jim Ley brings it to XHTML 1

<ShaneM> I said "objects are independent entities within the page. Navigation is local to the

<ShaneM> object and its own processing. This is defined in HTML 4."

Shane: but I claim it is an HTML 4 problem
... where the question is already answered

Steven: Good answer

Issue 8411

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml1-issues-20090527.html#ssec6

<MoZ> Moz : I'm with 4th edition. Since Namespace with XML is still not in sync with 5th edition

Steven: Thanks MoZ, that is good

<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/dirlang.html#adef-lang

Steven: lang and xml:lang are normatively defined elsewhere; I think it would be wrong to normatively define anything here
... if you use both, with different values, well, that's your own silly fault

Markus: Are the datatypes the same?

Shane: I think one is a subset of the other
... so it is possible to have a value of xml:lang that is not a legal value of @lang
... (in theory)

Steven: Didn't we want both lang and xml:lang for the same reason as name/id

Shane: There is a difference, largely because of accessibility software
... we were trying to be good XML citizens by including xml:lang

<MoZ> You have no choice to use xml:lang. It comes with XML 1.0 (as well as xml:space)

Steven: If we change the wording on this now, we would be leaving PER territory

<ShaneM> Good point. In XHTML 1.1 we say "This specification also adds the lang attribute to the I18N attribute collection as defined in [XHTMLMOD]. The lang attribute is defined in [HTML4]. When this attribute and the xml:lang are specified on the same element, the xml:lang takes precedence. When both lang and xml:lang are specified on the same element, they SHOULD have the same value."

Steven: it could invalidate existing UAs
... In XHTML 1.1, we are expanding the number of allowable documents, and not invalidating existing UAs

Shane: Section c.7 has been removed, so the comment doesn't apply

Steven: It does, because he wanted something added to the normative requirements
... which is out of scope, because these attributes are defined elsewhere
... and I will argue that at the transition call

5 mins break for coffee

back

Removed anchors

Shane: WHat do we do; I have kept the anchors with a pointer to the place where they now are

Roland: That's the best we can do

Shane: He's written a validator against appx C, and that broke the error messages in his validator

<Tina> Who wrote a 'validator' ?

Bjoern

Steven: This isn't the first time this has happened with a W3C spec (anchors changing)

Shane: Well, they don't get a 404

6593

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml1-issues-20090527.html#ssec7

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528/#h-4.7

<ShaneM> sorry - just a minute

Steven: We defer to XML on the definition of whitespace
... and even point that out in 4.7

<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xhtml1-20000126/#uaconf

Steven: I still think that XML definition of whitespace on input, and CSS definition on output is the good answer
... and not add anything else. The spec at 4.7 says exactly what it should do

Shane: Issue closed
... we are rejecting his request, no edits are associated with this change

Issue 8285

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml1-issues-20090527.html#ssec8

Shane: Nothing to do with this document.
... Do we want to add a schema?

Steven: Let's not give ourselves any more work

Shane: OK, this comment is not associated with XHTL 1.0 anymore

Issue 8415

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml1-issues-20090527.html#ssec9

Shane: I think he was misinterpreting this section

<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml1-20090528/#normative item 3

Shane: It means "@name does not create a fragment identifier"

Steven: Looking at the wording of his comment, he is asking for changes wrt to appx C, which is gone. So I think the issue is closed

Issue 6397

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml1-issues-20090527.html#ssec10

Shane: I have made the changes
... they make no changes to an UA
... and anyway, all the datatypes map to CDATA

Steven: So this is just editorial
... names of datatypes that are otherwise equivalent

Issue 7087

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml1-issues-20090527.html#ssec11

Steven: So we just take out the second part of the sentence?

Shane: Yes, get rid of duplication

Steven: I can live with that

Shane: I will make that change
... It is in an informative section anyway

Issue 6232

<Tina> Which list is 6332 on?

<ShaneM> 6232 is in the voyager issues thing - Steven is getting a link now

<Tina> Thanks

http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/XHTML-1.0-SE?id=6232;user=guest;selectid=6232;statetype=-1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1

<ShaneM> Ian's objection is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2009AprJun/0020.html

Steven: What can I say except that I disagree?
... ALl we do is give guidelines on getting documents to render in HTML UAs

S/ALl/All/

<ShaneM> 5.1 in third edition current reads: XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in [XHTMLMIME] may be labeled with the Internet Media Type "text/html" [RFC2854], as they are compatible with most HTML browsers. Those documents, and any other document conforming to this specification, may also be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236]. For further information on using media types with XHTML, see the informativ

<ShaneM> For information on delivering XHTML 1.0 Documents to user agents that do not natively handle this media type, see [XHTMLMIME] .

<ShaneM> So the final text for 5.1 would read: XHTML 1.0 Documents should be be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236]. For information on delivering XHTML 1.0 Documents to user agents that do not natively handle this media type, see [XHTMLMIME] .

<ShaneM> any objections to this text?

Steven: This is an informative section, right?

Shane: Yes
... I'll suggest the change to the commentator
... So we are done, modulo checking for missed comments, and checking new comments on the PERs

Any other comments

<Tina> I have none

<ShaneM> ... Roland searches email archives ...

<Roland> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2009May/0018.html

Shane: Yes, this is new

Roland: We'll talk about it when we get to 1.1
... it is in the wrong place, but let's add it to the issues system

XHTML 1.1 issues

<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml11-issues-20090525.html

Shane: There are 21 issues
... most trivial
... I haven't done the final pass
... first issue is @id on script
... fixed and closed

Issue 8840

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml11-issues-20090525.html#ssec2

Steven: HTML4 disallows these with exclusions
... and for XHTML we used English text

<Tina> What's the reasoning behind that change?

TIna - because XML doesn't have exclusions

Steven: Oh but wait, Modularization uses exclusions!

Shane: We were so clever!
... we win!
... "Content exclusions should be defined by the rules in M12N, which can't be expressed in all schema grammars"

<MoZ> That's where I think Relax NG + NVDL could help

<MoZ> (It's more Relax NG + Schematron to be fair)

<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/#abstract-def

Shane: Ruby does it right too!

Steven: So the reply is that the spec is clear, and does the right thing

<ShaneM> XHTML 1.1 references the XHTML M12N and Ruby Recommendations. Those Recommendations define content models using an abstract content model grammar, and these are specifically excluded already. While the underlying implementation(s) may not be able to enforce these exclusions because of limitations in their grammars, the restrictions are nontheless normative.

Steven: using the definitions as required by M12N