This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
— |
design:20140212-notes [2014/02/12 13:21] (current) rsewikiadmin created |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | Attendees: | ||
+ | * Adam - n/a | ||
+ | * Alice - ok | ||
+ | * Dave - n/a | ||
+ | * Joe - ok | ||
+ | * Julian - ok | ||
+ | * Nevil - ok | ||
+ | * Paul - ok | ||
+ | * Robert - ok | ||
+ | * Ted - ok | ||
+ | * Tony - ok | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Agenda | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1. The latest on the v2 and v3 vocabulary drafts | ||
+ | |||
+ | Julian - the spec has the vocabulary description and a few additional sections, one of which is the one about the use of certain unicode characters to enforce certain things like non-breaking space. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Tony - will the v2 vocabulary need to change to accommodate things like the DOI? | ||
+ | (Julian) by definition, v2 cannot change any more, and all changes would be in v3. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) - Agree with Julian. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Tony) Field data, external identifier reference to the bibliographic references, in the references section. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (HF note to self) We need to make sure what we need to do is clear in the DOI draft. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) we probably don't have to touch v2 to do anything in particular with the DOI URI, since we already use URLs. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Robert) the text Tony is pointing to discusses something else, a request that you have arguments to xml2rfc where we use includes now so you can include DOIs there and then xml2rfc will build the reference in the manner we expect. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) that's not how I read it, but its fine, and doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Julian) we shouldn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) agree with Julian on this one. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | V3 and backwards compatibility -- Where do we stand with the backwards compatibility debate? | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) that's the right gradient. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Joe) if we're going to break backwards compatibility, | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Julian) there was agreement that lists need to be fixed, but no agreement on how to fix it. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) that discussion now has a concrete way of looking at backward compatibility. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Ted) backwards compatibility means different things to different people. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) People seem to be ignoring the converter option. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Julian) what is hard about lists other than they are different than HTML lists? | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Ted) there is a whole section in the v3 doc that describes new ways to do lists, and they all make lists easier and more intuitive. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Julian) with block quotes, we may be introducing just a new way to abuse an element. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) sensitive to the fact that we are abusing things in the list, but adding just a block quote then indicates this is a quote, and the vast majority are not quotes. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Julian) we should look at why people are intending things. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Tony) or an attribute for text. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) if what people want is something that has a semantic to it that expresses itself in their heads as indented, let's add the semantic. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) I feel I do have an understanding of where the trouble with lists are based on the discussion on rfc-i. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Julian) those were just my problems, and other people probably have different problems. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) your problems got a few +1s, and resonated with some of Paul's items. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Alice) based on existing docs: people don't use lists at all and use t tags instead; or they want a bulleted list and they don't know how to get it to use hyphens because they do't understand the processing instruction; | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) with the things you are seeing, is this in XML? Yes, this is all from XML files submitted. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Ted) one other points about how lists are used now, the way we do lists number is not compatible with how HTML does automatic list numbering, and so it is difficult to get a broken list to have the numbers line up again. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) it is different and its funky. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Julian) Please send an example of that to the list. To Alice' | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Joe) where we can, why not just copy what HTML does? | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) if HTML pushes this int to CSS, that's not what people know. Did not go to "ol, ul, el" because we also have definition lists. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Joe) Leave the old one for backward compatibility and allow the new one. Use deprecated/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Julian) HTML in itself does not have this functionality, | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Joe) this is why I suggest we go to HTML in the first place. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Julian) that's why I'm worry about breaking backwards compatibility away from the direction taken by HTML. We have two different types of list in xml2rfc - the numbered and simple, and the other where we have text labels. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Joe) suggest that we end up in HTML having predefined classes associated with them | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Julian) we have people asking for the ability to cross ref list items. In HTML you have little control over who the browser displays the list. You have control how its formatted, but not what the symbols and numbering schemes are. (??) In HTML you don't have the lists item number in your content, so if you want to reference something you have to | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) am happy to make minor and massive changes as long as they are generated by a direction. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | 2. non-ASCII characters and what that means for the xml vocabulary | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Heather) Paul captured the technical requirements underlying the examples well. HF is doing a bit of wordsmithing here, and will send out a revised doc shortly. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) Heather designed a protocol or format without saying what the basic requirements are. Paul does not actually agree with all those requirements. | ||
+ | This is about creating a text format that is dumbed down to make that second requirement go away. | ||
+ | We don't know which way things are broken for txt documents. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Joe) go back to the uglification document? | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) That will still work in the vast majority of cases we're worried about. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Heather) I want to get Dave Thaler' | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Robert) presenting a string in UTF-8 then calling out that string for U+ literals, and making sure they say the same thing. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Paul) | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | 3. SVG profile update (Nevil) | ||
+ | Nevil has a revised draft out. Send him comments. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 4. PDF to HTML mapping draft update (Tony) | ||
+ | Tony has not received much input. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 5. Editor change for HTML draft (Heather/ | ||
+ | Heather is taking the pen on this draft; working with Joe on the logistics of transition during a call tomorrow. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | 6. February 26 call? Think about it. |