Action Itemopen: Jacob Refstrup (HP) will locate and make available a version of a tool to find and mark differences between two html documents.
Action Itemopen: Melinda Grant (now Jim Bigelow) asked how to keep the conformance section of the document (Section 2.3) in step with w3c specs. The discussion that followed weighted the value of a stable specification against the redundancy of restating other specifications. Therefore we should:
Do more research on how the w3c documents handle this issue.
Weight the pros and cons of two techniques:
Restate the conformance requirements in force at the time the spec is issued with changes and requirements necessary for XHTML-Print.
Simply refer to basic conformance requirements inherited from referenced documents and only state the exceptions, changes, and XHTML-Print requirements.
Action Itemopen: Canon will bring up the issue of image rotation with the w3c so that a w3c approved method can created and used in the XHTML-Print specification. In the interim the processing of EXIF marker will be optional.
Action Itemopen: Canon/HP -- The interaction with EXIF markers and a not yet developed CSS property for specifying the orientation/rotation of the images was discussed. What if the EXIF marker exists and the CSS property is or is not there? We should post the issue for discussion of the PWG XP mailing list for 2 weeks.
Action Itemopen: Jim/Elliott: produce updated drafts with changes listed above, in time for a 1-month review before next meeting.
Action Itemopen: Jim: Determine how to handle conformance statements with W3C documents.
Action Itemopen: Jim: Follow up with Jacob on CSS rotation and running headers/footers.
Open: Don Wright will ask contacts about an html diff tool.
Item 2: XHTML-Print conformance statement format, owner Jim Bigelow
Closed: Jim Proposed modeling the conformance statement after the one in the XHTML Basic statement with a list of exceptions and additions. The statement to read:
A printer must conform to the "XHTML Family User Agent Conformance" section of the
Modularization of XHTML specification (<[XHTMLMOD], section 3.5) with the following
exceptions and additions:
Validation is not required to claim conformance to this standard. A printer may "flush" or otherwise reject a non-conforming XHTML-Print document.
If a printer encounters an image in a format it does not support, it shall render any alternate content provided, and may reserve the space specified by the height and width attributes by optionally drawing a box around this space of the size specified for the image.
If the image format is not supported or the height and width attributes are absent and no alternate content is provided, the image may be omitted and no space reserved.
If the image format is supported and the height and width attributes were omitted, the printer may choose to omit the image from the page.
Printers may chose not to render content within elements defined by XHTML[XHTML1],
that is obviously not intended to be rendered, e.g. <script>.
A Form feed (�C;) must be treated as whitespace.
Printers that do not support the xml:lang attribute are not required to adhere to the rules for language specific whitespace handling.
Item 6: Determine how to handle conformance statements, owner Jim Bigelow
This is a restatement of item 2.
Item 7: Progress on CSS work on image rotation and running headers and footers, owner Jim Bigelow
Work within the W3S CSS working group on properties to specify an image's orientation, and to create running headers and footers on printed pages has not progressed to the pointer were there's a public draft. There may be one by early next year, but no time table has been set.
1394 Trade Association's AV Working Group's usage of XHTML-Print - Fumio Nagasaka
Action Item: Jim Bigelow will make a version of the specification with a new Digital TV conformance level available before the next meeting in January.
Absolute Position - Don Wright
This central core of this issue is the memory and implementation requirements for implementing unrestricted positioning of elements anywhere on the page at any time during page rendering are prohibitive. The full issue is stated in http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/xp/0067.html.
Resolved: a printer may ignore elements that are positioned on portions of the page that have already been rendered. This caveat will be added to the conformance statement for discussion at subsequent meetings.
Action Item: Jim Bigelow,
Update specifications with comments from review and release on pwg page.
Then create a new version of the specifications with information from the Digital TV enhancement requests. These will be discussed both on the xp mailing list of the pwg and at the next PWG XHTML-Print meeting January 20, 2003 in Maui,