August 27, 2002
Santa Fe, NM
Recorded by Elliott Bradshaw
Harry Lewis, IBM
Don Wright, Lexmark
Hitoshi Sekine, Ricoh
Peter Zehler, Xerox
David Hall, HP
Elliott Bradshaw, Oak Technology
Jim Bigelow, HP
Fumio Nagasaka, Epson
Shivaun Albright, HP
Jerry Thrasher, Lexmark
Shigeru Ueda, Canon
Kenichi Takeda, Ricoh
Atsushi Uchino, Epson
Rod Acosta, Agfa Monotype
Ron Bergman, Hitachi
Gail Songer, Peerless
Ted Tronson, Novell
Jeff Christensen, Novell
Yiruo Yang, Epson
Bill Wagner, NetSilicon
Jim Bigelow has assumed the role of Editor for the spec. Don Wright remains Chair of the group. Elliott Bradshaw agreed to be Recording Secretary.
Minutes from the June meeting were approved.
Action item review: the following items from June were not closed:
1. Do more research on how the w3c documents handle this issue.
2. 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.
1. XML lists a small number of builtin character entities, while XHTML lists a much larger set. Decision: update the XHTML-Print spec to reference the XHTML set as required.
2. Jim proposed a document that shows how a browser can incorporate form data in a single data stream to send to the printer. Decision: incorporate this as an informative appendix.
3. Some attributes overlap functions of CSS properties (e.g. height and width). Elliott had proposed to omit these from the list of required support for attributes. Decision: they should be included after all, with a note that CSS properties take precedent. We need to support all the attributes from XHTML, with the exception of those that mean nothing in a printing environment. Elliott to locate other duplicate attributes and bring them back.
4. XML prevents using minimized attributes. E.g. the client must say selected=”selected” rather than just selected. The current draft reinforces this. Decision: OK.
5. We reviewed the proposed support for CSS selectors, which is the same as for CSS Mobile. Decision: OK as is, but clarify confusing text about “div.warning”.
6. The current draft has some differences in property support compared to V.95. Decision: edit this to show the same level of support as in V.95.
7. xml:lang could be listed as “conditionally required” for printers that implement language-based extensions Decision: do this.
8. We discussed counters. Decision: only the single counter named "pages" is required. Clarify this in the spec.
Don would like a detailed review of the next drafts of these two documents at the November meeting, with a goal of approval. After this, a group of companies who are also W3C members will submit them to the W3C. We agreed to proceed even if the CSS rotation property has not been defined.
1. Jim/Elliott: produce updated drafts with changes listed above, in time for a 1-month review before next meeting.
2. Jim: Determine how to handle conformance statements with W3C documents.
3. Jim: Follow up with Jacob on CSS rotation and running headers/footers.