13:51:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swbp
13:51:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-irc
13:51:09 <RalphS> Meeting: SWBPD RDF-in-XHTML TF
13:51:22 <RalphS> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/t-and-s/2006Feb/0004.html
13:52:00 <RalphS> Previous: 2006-01-30 http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-minutes.html
14:00:55 <Steven> Steven has joined #swbp
14:01:03 <benadida> benadida has joined #swbp
14:01:23 <Steven> ki
14:01:25 <Steven> Hi I mean
14:01:37 <Steven> Mark is in a delayed train so may be 15 mins late
14:01:40 <Zakim> SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)9:00AM has now started
14:01:44 <Steven> zakim, who is here?
14:01:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
14:01:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see benadida, Steven, RRSAgent, Zakim, RalphS
14:01:47 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida
14:01:49 <Zakim> +Ralph
14:01:51 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
14:01:55 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:01:57 <Zakim> +Steven
14:01:58 <RalphS> Chair: BenA
14:02:28 <RalphS> Regrets: Jeremy
14:03:19 <RalphS> Topic: integration of RDF/A syntax into XHTML specs.
14:03:34 <RalphS> Steven: integration is proceeding.  We hope it will be done by the end of this week.
14:04:08 <RalphS> Ralph: will this TF be given a URI of an editor's draft for us to glance at?
14:04:13 <RalphS> Steven: yes, absolutely
14:04:27 <RalphS> ... to speed up the process we're inclined to say now "comment on the Last Call draft"
14:04:42 <RalphS> ... as if we issue another WD now it will delay Last Call
14:04:57 <RalphS> ... every time we reissue a draft we get lots of new comments that prevent us from exiting Last Call
14:05:36 <RalphS> ... so we'd like to give the TF a final Last Call
14:05:54 <RalphS> Ralph: can we see a "final" editor's draft?
14:05:54 <RalphS> Steven: if you really, really want
14:06:40 <RalphS> Ralph: it would be reasonable to ask the TF to restrict its comments to "show stoppers"
14:07:35 <benadida> Ralph: if integration finished this week, then next week's telecon is probably when you decide readiness for publishing
14:07:41 <benadida> Steven: yes
14:07:58 <benadida> ... the integration will be done this week, though we might not be in last call next week.
14:09:06 <benadida> Ralph: how does the XHTML WG share editors' drafts?
14:09:14 <benadida> Steve: nightly build URL that I'll send along
14:09:42 <benadida> Ralph: so we can look at the nightly build over the weekend
14:12:57 <benadida> ACTION: once Steven sends editors' draft of XHTML2, all TF members take a look and comment on showstopper issues only
14:13:32 <RalphS> Topic: review of action items
14:14:03 <RalphS> [CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy followup on edge case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action03] 
14:14:13 <RalphS> [CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy followup with Mark on the question of multiple triples from nested meta and add to issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action01]
14:14:18 <RalphS> [CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy propose wording on reification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action02]
14:14:59 <RalphS> [CONTINUES] ACTION: Ben to draft full response to Bjoern's 2004 email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
14:15:11 <RalphS> Ben: mostly done, just need to finish the bit on collections
14:15:32 <RalphS> [CONTINUES] ACTION: Ben start separate mail threads on remaining discussion topics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action04]
14:15:43 <RalphS> Ben: a couple of issue threads left
14:16:00 <RalphS> ... but consider yourselves reprimanded for not responding to the existing threads
14:16:11 <RalphS> [DONE] ACTION: Ben add lack-of-consensus notes to the RDF/A Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-minutes.html#action12]
14:16:45 <RalphS> agenda+ Wording in Section 2 Note
14:18:53 <benadida> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Dec/0016
14:19:34 <RalphS> Topic: Issue 9; <link href='...'>
14:19:52 <RalphS> Steven: so the proposal is that <link> should be equivalent to <a>?
14:20:09 <RalphS> ... other option is to say that only <a> is intended to be clickable
14:20:23 <RalphS> Ben: note that <link> has the special semantics of 'refers to parent element only'
14:20:46 <RalphS> Steven: <link> currently has the property that the links are often accessible in the browser
14:20:52 <RalphS> ... e.g. <link rel='next'>
14:20:57 <RalphS> ... shows up in a menu
14:21:08 <RalphS> ... what's new in XHTML2 now is that <link> is permitted in body
14:21:16 <RalphS> Ben: is content permitted in <link>?
14:21:22 <RalphS> ... if so, what does it mean?
14:21:43 <RalphS> Steven: yes, content is permitted.  It's a question whether <link> is display:none
14:22:19 <RalphS> Ben: it's a decision for the HTML WG to say whether link is display:none by default and can be overridden by stylesheets
14:22:43 <RalphS> ... would it be the case that the value of display can be overridden in a stylesheet?
14:23:10 <RalphS> Steven: the attribute that makes <link> clickable is not specifiable in a stylesheet
14:23:37 <RalphS> ... since href is now permitted everywhere, this raises the question of whether every element now becomes clickable
14:24:13 <MarkB_> MarkB_ has joined #swbp
14:24:27 <RalphS> ... the HTML WG's current feeling is that the href is accessible to the user in some way but not necessarily rendered in the same way as <a>
14:25:21 <RalphS> Ben: this could be an issue for users if href has both RDF semantics and other semantics
14:25:39 <Zakim> +??P7
14:25:47 <MarkB_> zakim, i am ?
14:25:47 <Zakim> +MarkB_; got it
14:26:04 <RalphS> Ralph: could be a user interoperability problem; href seems likely to get some presentation semantics which might differ between browsers
14:27:10 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Dec/0016 "Discussing Outsanding Issues - Issue #9" [Ben 2005-12-11]
14:27:51 <RalphS> Ben: is the HTML WG leaning towards making href on other elements behave differently than on <a>?
14:28:06 <RalphS> Steven: I think that <meta> and <link> are display:none
14:28:34 <RalphS> ... but the question still arises on what happens of the stylesheet does make it displayable
14:29:23 <RalphS> ... my feeling is that if <link> or <meta> is made visible it should not appear as a primary clickable link
14:29:55 <RalphS> Mark: as soon as we say that href is a left-clickable link everywhere this makes things consistent
14:30:22 <RalphS> ... then if we say these elements are display:none by default [we are compatible with older browsers]
14:30:59 <RalphS> ... right-button on a <blockquote>, for example, would be a nice way to show a menu of all links from this quote
14:31:28 <RalphS> ... not unlike what browsers do to create a menu bar for <link rel='next'>
14:32:55 <RalphS> Steven: the question is where to draw the line between the XHTML specification and user agent behaviour
14:33:13 <RalphS> ... whether [user agent behaviour] should be made normative or not
14:34:11 <RalphS> Ben: the question of default value of display really only applies when the <link> or <meta> is not empty
14:34:44 <RalphS> Mark: I suggest we say that the link content is an rdfs:label that applies to the subject
14:35:19 <RalphS> ... with inline text [content] a clever browser can use the rdfs:label in its menu
14:36:29 <RalphS> Ben: <li href=''> is clickable, right?
14:36:47 <RalphS> Mark: yes, and with the primary means of navigation
14:37:20 <RalphS> Ben: so the question is whether <link> and <meta> are consistent with this
14:37:50 <RalphS> Mark: I don't think it would be right to make a special case for this except by adding display:none
14:38:36 <RalphS> Ben: so we agree here that <link> and <meta> are clickable but the HTML WG may decide to add display:none
14:39:13 <RalphS> Steven: so the suggestion is that any element with href is clickable [in the primary method] when it is visible?
14:39:14 <RalphS> Ben: yes
14:40:41 <RalphS> PROPOSED: This Task Force concurs that href on any element that is visible makes that element clickable using the primary user agent mechanism but that <link> and <meta> may be display:none by default at the HTML WG's choice
14:41:03 <RalphS> so RESOLVED
14:41:18 <RalphS> Topic: RSS in RDF/A
14:41:32 <benadida> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jan/0063.html
14:41:56 <benadida> the bug is:
14:41:57 <benadida> <ul id="#items"
14:41:57 <RalphS> Ben: note Ian Davis' correction
14:41:59 <benadida> should be
14:42:06 <benadida> <ul id="items" about="#items">
14:43:11 <RalphS> Ralph: please add the namespace declaration
14:43:37 <RalphS> Ben: the primary question here is about the rdf:Seq
14:44:03 <MarkB_> www.xforms-wiki.com
14:44:50 <RalphS> (that link is on the -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/ HTML TF home page)
14:45:32 <RalphS> -> http://www.xforms-wiki.com/bin/view/Main/LanguageRdfAExampleRSS LanguageRdfAExampleRSS
14:46:20 <RalphS> Ben: I wrote 0063 without using any syntactic sugar; i.e. rel="ref:_1"
14:47:22 <RalphS> ... can we use rdf:li ?
14:47:43 <RalphS> Mark: unless you use [XML] Schema, you don't get the html <li> semantics if you use rdf:li
14:48:30 <RalphS> Ben: can we use rdf:li to avoid needing _1, _2, etc.  Having to use XML Schema is fine.
14:48:51 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-list-elements 2.15 Container Membership Property Elements: rdf:li and rdf:_n
14:49:21 <RalphS> Mark: alternatively, we could say that html:li has rdf:li semantics
14:51:29 <RalphS> ... hasn't rdf:Seq been replaced by lists?
14:51:51 <RalphS> Ralph: rdf:Seq is not deprecated, but lists have important semantics that indicate that the list is complete
14:52:10 <RalphS> Mark: rdf:Seq has semantics of saying _ordered_ lists
14:52:35 <RalphS> ... in your 0063 example you've used <ul> -- unordered list
14:52:56 <RalphS> ... we could use the HTML semantics to advantage; create rdf:Seq or rdf:Bag
14:53:31 <RalphS> Ben: the HTML semantics imply the list is complete, don't they?
14:53:33 <RalphS> Ralph: not clear
14:54:05 <RalphS> Mark: do we expect anything to make use of the ordered/unordered semantics?
14:54:16 <RalphS> Ralph: I would think so, since HTML has those semantics
14:54:46 <RalphS> Ben: I'm in favor of looking at ordered vs. unordered semantics
14:55:39 <RalphS> Ralph: so an important question from the HTML point of view is whether authors using <ol> and <ul> intend to say "... and this is the complete list"?
14:55:56 <RalphS> Steven: given the start attribute, I would not want to make a commitment to what authors intend
14:56:35 <Zakim> -Steven
14:56:47 <RalphS> ACTION: Ben write out a proposal for how OL and UL turn into rdf:Seq and rdf:Bag
14:57:02 <RalphS> Mark: there's a new type list in XHTML 2; an <nl> -- Navigation List
14:57:34 <RalphS> ... so <ol> might be an rdf:Seq and every other type of list is rdf:Bag
14:58:02 <RalphS> Ralph: perhaps <nl> is like rdf:Alt, since you choose one navigation path :)
14:58:15 <RalphS> ... but I don't think we really want to overload things that much
14:59:35 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Feb/0015.html
15:02:45 <RalphS> Ralph: it's clear that Section 2 does not follow the TAG's instructions
15:02:57 <RalphS> ... what is less clear is whether the ambiguity is critical
15:03:26 <RalphS> ... how about "do not follow" rather than "incorrect"
15:03:42 <RalphS> Mark: I don't mind "incorrect" if they really don't follow the TAG's instructions
15:04:55 <RalphS> Ralph: propose to add the sentence "pecifically, the
15:04:55 <RalphS>    examples in this section use the same URI to refer to both a Person
15:04:55 <RalphS>    (or a group of people) and a document.
15:04:56 <RalphS> "
15:04:59 <RalphS> Ben: OK with me
15:05:02 <RalphS> Mark: OK with me
15:05:22 <RalphS> ... there are two levels at which the URI confusion is happening; one at the foaf level and the other at the URI level
15:06:42 <RalphS> Ralph: it feels a mistake to me to omit the subject of the triples, particularly in section 2.2.3
15:07:51 <RalphS> ... as this is explicitly the nature of this URI debate
15:08:03 <RalphS> ... let's not sweep this under the rug as we do know what the current RDF/A syntax spec says
15:08:13 <RalphS> Mark: that's fine with me
15:09:03 <RalphS> Ralph: we can note that there is a philosophical debate going on but let's not dodge that; the Primer should show what the Syntax spec says must be generated
15:10:25 <RalphS> RESOLVED: we agree that the rest of the triple can be added before publication
15:11:15 <RalphS> ACTION: Ben update the editor's draft
15:11:36 <RalphS> ACTION 3= Ben update the editor's draft to add to section 2
15:11:43 <Zakim> -Ralph
15:11:45 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida
15:11:46 <Zakim> -MarkB_
15:11:48 <Zakim> SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)9:00AM has ended
15:11:49 <Zakim> Attendees were Ben_Adida, Ralph, Steven, MarkB_
15:12:32 <RalphS> rrsagent, please make this record public
15:12:36 <RalphS> rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:12:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-minutes.html RalphS
15:12:48 <RalphS> zakim, bye
15:12:48 <Zakim> Zakim has left #swbp
16:11:59 <benadida> benadida has left #swbp
17:44:05 <guus> guus has joined #swbp
17:45:18 <Guus> Guus has joined #swbp
17:48:28 <TBaker> TBaker has joined #swbp
17:50:08 <RalphS_> RalphS_ has joined #swbp
17:51:02 <RalphS_> rrsagent, bye
17:51:02 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-actions.rdf :
17:51:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: once Steven sends editors' draft of XHTML2, all TF members take a look and comment on showstopper issues only [1]
17:51:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-irc#T14-12-57
17:51:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben write out a proposal for how OL and UL turn into rdf:Seq and rdf:Bag [2]
17:51:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-irc#T14-56-47
17:51:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben update the editor's draft to add to section 2 [3]
17:51:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-irc#T15-11-15