13:34:02 RRSAgent has joined #xhtml
13:34:02 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-irc
13:35:11 Meeting: XHTML2 WG Weekly Teleconference
13:35:36 Chair: Roland
13:36:07 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Apr/0043.html
13:36:37 rrsagent, make minutes
13:36:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-minutes.html Roland
13:36:50 rrsagent, make log public
13:37:40 Regrets: Shane
13:39:08 Zakim, this will be XHTML2
13:39:08 ok, Roland; I see IA_XHTML2()9:45AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
13:40:34 IA_XHTML2()9:45AM has now started
13:40:41 +Roland
13:42:44 Regrets: Shane, Yam
13:42:55 rrsagent, make minutes
13:42:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-minutes.html Roland
13:46:47 Steven-eee has joined #xhtml
13:46:54 zakim, dial steven-617
13:46:54 ok, Steven-eee; the call is being made
13:46:55 +Steven
13:46:59 oedipus has joined #xhtml
13:47:08 markbirbeck has joined #xhtml
13:49:19 +??P3
13:49:27 Steven has joined #xhtml
13:49:49 zakim, who is here?
13:49:49 On the phone I see Roland, Steven, ??P3
13:49:50 On IRC I see Steven, markbirbeck, oedipus, Steven-eee, RRSAgent, Zakim, Roland, Tina, myakura, Lachy, krijnh
13:49:57 zakim, ??P3 is Alessio
13:49:57 +Alessio; got it
13:51:09 +Gregory_Rosmaita
13:52:48 scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
13:52:52 scribeNick: oedipus
13:53:26 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Apr/0043.html
13:53:41 chair: Roland_Merrick
13:53:52 regrets: Shane_McCarron, Yam
13:54:28 zakim, code?
13:54:28 the conference code is 94865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
13:54:58 +markbirbeck
13:55:23 meeting: XHTML2 Working Group Weekly Telecon
13:55:24 Previous minutes: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/09-xhtml-minutes
13:55:43 RM: progress on CSS Namespaces in CSS coordination group -- lin k to wording in post
13:55:48 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Apr/0037.html
13:56:43 RM: asked to put words in, have been proposed within group, explaination of what happening in CSS; had problem with wording, i said words looked ok to me, but need to get WG ok
13:56:58 Steven: +1
13:57:07 GJR: no problem with adding note - +1
13:58:05 SP: if want standard selectors to work same, but still want to use CSS Namespaces, should use CSS selectors -- could add or stand pat
13:58:25 RM: good usage documents outside of spec - think we got what we asked for
13:58:32 ACTION - Steven: inform CSS CG that XHTML2 WG happy with note
13:59:39 ACTION: Steven - inform CSS CG that XHTML2 WG happy with proposed paragraph
14:00:09 XML Base (Second Edition)
14:00:09 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PER-xmlbase-20080320/
14:00:14 SP: not finished
14:00:23 TOPIC: Minneapolis Face2Face
14:00:34 XML Base (Second Edition)
14:00:34 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PER-xmlbase-20080320/
14:00:49 ACTION: Steven - create questionnaire for June 2008 F2F
14:01:14 SP: media-type discussion agenda item request
14:01:18 RM: ok
14:01:41 TOPIC: CURRIEs
14:01:55 RM: TAG review, Steven preparing reply
14:02:01 RM: pointer to note:
14:02:11 s/CURRIEs/CURIEs/
14:02:30 CURRIEs is a much hotter topic. ;)
14:02:37 SP: only after general points will use Shane's extended verbiage -- that will be separate email
14:02:38 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Apr/0050.html
14:02:54 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Apr/0050.html
14:03:36 SP: 1) TAG said "what precisely is requirement" -- surprised -- Introduction explains that; QNames can't address all URIs, so that's where the need for CURIEs enters
14:03:48 RM: if that is the case, can make more prominent in Introduction
14:03:57 SP: make intro more crisp?
14:04:08 RM: make clearer and more obvious in Intro
14:04:23 MB: been talking with Shane about rewrites of several sections to enhance clarity
14:04:48 SP: will reply to that effect -- crispen intro to make primary req CURIEs intended to address
14:06:15 SP: 2nd point: overlap between CURIEs and QNames - could argue (as i am) that that is a good point, and not a bad point; good for 3 reasonss: 1) specs that use QNames where should be using CURIEs will be able to change datatype, while old content still valued and new content extended; 2) syntax used and easily understood; 3) syntax used in other places as well, so strange to invent a new syntax
14:06:42 SP: not sure whether asking us to add to specification -- would not be open to that (explaining background in spec)
14:07:23 RM: could look at some discussion/observation mentioning comparissons between QNames and CURIEs so not left to reader to interpret
14:07:44 MB: consequence of CURIEs will be that documents will still be valid and extensible
14:09:47 SP: regrettable that there is a clash between QName and CURIEs -- people used to using QName in host of languages; CURIEs only in syntaxic space -- not intended to be sent over wire; that is one of their worries -- CURIEs sent over the wire for processing, as opposed to a URI
14:10:33 MB: at top of comments state some comments based on earlier draft -- some of issues raised had been fixed by the time the draft they ostensively were reviewing
14:12:21 SP: should add "please note that the example to which you refer has already been excised"; don't think we should pussyfoot about this; ok to use CURIEs where URI allowed - represent same document space -- having to expand a pain and author burden; if but safe CURIE in a HREF user going to get a 404; think XHTML WG did right thing -- forward looking
14:13:07 MB: should be clear about CURIEs in RDFa -- syntax that removes ambiguity; haven't demanded that CURIEs be used everywhere URIs used; in RDFa don't allow CURIEs in HREF;
14:13:21 SP: make that a prominent point up front
14:14:21 s/should be clear about CURIEs in RDFa/TAG should be clear when referring to CURIEs and when to CURIEs in RDFa/
14:14:36 SP: TAG argue against safe CURIEs -- "consider carefully the use cases" are they really compelling? response: that's why they are in there - had compelling use casses
14:14:41 s/casses/cases
14:15:23 SP: example in comment wrong; all you can use is a valid URI
14:15:39 SP: don't follow last point's reasoning - people can write the wrong thing; already endemic
14:16:01 If xxx mapped to:
14:16:03 http://www.example.com/feeds/thursday/
14:16:12 there would be no problem.
14:16:51 MB: our area of concern is not the URI;
14:17:03 SP: only invalid if try to deference and points to xml document
14:17:17 MB: not invalid URI, just doesn't have effect you want;
14:17:28 SP: entirely up to author to use URIs legally
14:17:42 MB: about=#37b - wouldn't use id=
14:17:45 @about="#37b"
14:18:05 s/about="#37b"/@about="#37b"
14:18:30 RM: compelling use cases -- are they documented in RDFa Use Cases? perhaps should be
14:19:09 RM: went through trouble of RDFa Use Cases might as well use it and use language from it
14:19:24 RM: would be in primer -- people need to make use of it
14:20:06 SP: think can deduce from RDFa Use Cases that we need them; doesn't explicitly state it
14:20:24 MB: deduced from use cases documented in RDFa Use Cases -- if want to read, then they can
14:20:29 SP: ok
14:20:53 RM: apart from refinements just dicussed anyone against steven sending this as response?
14:21:10 SP: more thought about response, more i convinced myself what we are doing is absolutely right
14:21:26 [no objections logged]
14:21:37 SP: make changes and recirculate before list before sending to TAG
14:21:57 TOPIC: Mime-Type
14:22:19 SP: since last we spoke, had 2 one and a half hour meetings internally in w3c about this topic
14:24:08 SP: summarize: our position seems to be getting stronger; TBL seemed to lean our way; think we are winning; some problems about shane's new mediatypes doc -- had to repeatedly point out that an in-process draft; complaint that XHTML2 should not define what HTML can do -- only drawing info from specific specs and documentation of what is being done and what one can do
14:24:14 RM: was intended as a note anyway
14:24:35 SP: right; have to make sure that understood that this isn't a spec or new reqs, but that a documentation of what exists
14:26:12 SP: had to defend Appendix C -- at least 1 person upset that XHTML 1.0 can be sent as text/html as long as follow appendix C - section that refers to Appendix C is normative, but Appendix C is informative -- could cause confusion was the complaint -- suggested that that suggestion be submitted to list; like idea of issuing new edition of XHTML 1.0 -- good way to clarify misconceptions and firmly stake our ground
14:26:42 SP: believe that TBL going to address this at either the AC meeting or the conference in Beijing next week
14:27:48 RM: reason started this work was to help people writing XHTML and want to make sure will be rendered appropriately that don't know anything about application/xml -- just attempting to make clear what one should do if sending as text/html rather than application/xml
14:28:12 SP: been stated that "no one uses XHTML" because being sent by text/html
14:29:09 SP: TBL surprised to hear no one used XHTML; more than 50% of top 20 web sites using XHTML
14:29:56 MB: whole argument that datatype being delivered determines a language is a load; SHOULD pretty strong
14:30:21 SP: if create, run through validator but deliver to IE as text/html, not author's intent
14:30:37 SP: assumed that UAs would switch on to new mediatype
14:30:44 MB: hope we learned our lesson
14:31:45 SP: why not use text/html -- upcry from XML community -- worried that that would "dirty" XML; HTML functionality turning up in XML; IE uses class solely to drive stylesheets, reason why didn't want us to use text/html; long discussions in IETF on this
14:33:03 MB: more general point - 2 worlds of XML; 1 where can have any document interpreted by schema; but in realworld actually very little ambiguities; pure XML world has a lot of baggage as does HTML world;
14:33:28 SP: difficult to spot in advance these types of issues; had no clue would be so difficult to get new media type into a browser
14:33:29 Tina...XML parsers are used to generate the XHTML, don't necessarily need to be used to consume it.
14:34:11 RM: 1) want to create XML with knowledge that may be served as XHTML or HTML; 2) what do we need to do - don't need to change our specs - already say SHOULD
14:34:25 SP: current plan to republish media note best can do for time being
14:34:27 RM: ok
14:34:38 GJR: plus 1 to SP
14:35:33 SP: think this is a battle that we are winning; TBL talking about how to get people to move towards well-formed content; in harmony with our underlying principles
14:35:35 markbirbeck: then it might be best to transform the XML content to HTML before sending it to the client, to keep things simple.
14:35:49 TOPIC: Status of Documents
14:35:55 RM: M12n request
14:36:13 SP: steveB travelling to beijing -- haven't had a reply yet
14:36:21 Tina: How is adding an extra step simpler than not adding an extra step? :)
14:36:59 SP: just re-checked email - no sent transition request 1 april 2008
14:37:08 RM: same with XHTML Basic?
14:37:16 SP: yes
14:38:06 markbirbeck: quite easy. Today developers are sending entirely broken XHTML to clients, as text/html, thinking they use "well-formed XML". If we want 'well-formed content' on the clients, we either need to state clearly that XHTML *MUST* be sent with the proper media type, or accept that the work has to be done on the server.
14:38:06 SP: SteveB convinced there is connection btw M12n and Basic; i and chris lilley have been trying to disabuse him of that
14:38:31 SP: will also ping chris lilley to see if he has heard anything more?
14:38:39 TOPIC: Access Module
14:38:59 RM: sitting around for a while; said would go to last call -- issues?
14:39:11 GJR: posted 2 issues on Access
14:39:44 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Apr/0044.html
14:39:47 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Apr/0045.html
14:39:48 Tina: Really? Are you seeing lots of broken mark-up?
14:40:06 (Broken XML, I mean.)
14:41:16 markbirbeck: I see a huge amount of xhtml-doctype-sent-as-html which wouldn't pass muster as HTML 3.2, much less XHTML.
14:43:08 Tina: But you still have to ask...so what? We don't gain anything by insisting that they send the data as application/xhtml+xml, and then have browser reject it. What's the point of that?
14:44:20 -markbirbeck
14:44:22 -Steven
14:44:23 -Gregory_Rosmaita
14:44:25 -Alessio
14:44:29 -Roland
14:44:30 IA_XHTML2()9:45AM has ended
14:44:32 Attendees were Roland, Steven, Alessio, Gregory_Rosmaita, markbirbeck
14:44:33 markbirbeck: do we gain any terrain for well-formed XML - on the client - by allowing XHTML to be sent with a content-type which does nothing to enforce those well-formedness rules?
14:44:52 GJR: only must activate be boolean? issue needs vetting, will address at both PF today and UA meeting thursday; don't forsee a major hold up
14:45:00 rrsagent, draft minutes
14:45:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
14:45:16 zakim, please part
14:45:16 I see no reason why text/html shouldn't be able to require wellformedness if the content is clearly XHTML
14:45:16 Zakim has left #xhtml
14:45:24 rrsagent, draft minutes
14:45:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
14:45:55 present: Tina_via_IRC
14:45:57 rrsagent, draft minutes
14:45:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
14:46:56 present+ Roland_Merrick, Steven_Pemberton, Alessio_Cartocci, Gregory_Rosmaita, Mark_Birbeck
14:46:58 rrsagent, draft minutes
14:46:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
14:47:30 Tina: I don't really understand that point. Browsers have traditionally been pieces of software that allow people to read interesting things, buy music, book holidays, etc...why should they also be tasked with promoting and popularising XML by acting like a policeman or censor? (I.e., preventing people from interacting with any document that doesn't pass some test.) That's not the way the web has worked 'till now.
14:47:37 rrsagent, draft minutes
14:47:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
14:48:14 Tina: There are other tools to aid validation, the browser is really not a good one, especially when it's being used by an end-user; what does 'this is invalid XML' mean to them?
14:49:17 rrsagent, publish minutes
14:49:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
14:49:52 markbirbeck: nothing much. But if the point is to "move towards well-formed content", then allowing a *stricter* - theoretically - language to be sent as, to put it bluntly, crap doesn't really help much.
14:50:13 rrsagent, publish minutes
14:50:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
14:50:58 Tina: I don't see "move towards well-formed content" as a goal in and of itself, though. It seems like a bad goal if it achieves "can't view this web-site".
14:51:05 rrsagent, publish minutes
14:51:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
14:51:20 markbirbeck: nor do I, but it would appear that /is/ considered an important goal.
14:51:26 rrsagent, publish minutes
14:51:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
14:51:31 Tina: By whom?
14:51:51 markbirbeck: TBL, it would appear.
14:52:07 Tina: I'm not sure you are right, there. :)
14:52:13 markbirbeck: just quoting.
14:52:18 rrsagent, publish minutes
14:52:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-minutes.html oedipus
14:52:42 rrsagent, please part
14:52:42 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-actions.rdf :
14:52:42 ACTION: Steven - inform CSS CG that XHTML2 WG happy with proposed paragraph [1]
14:52:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-irc#T13-59-39
14:52:42 ACTION: Steven - create questionnaire for June 2008 F2F [2]
14:52:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-xhtml-irc#T14-00-49