See also: IRC log, Previous: 2006-04-10
next meeting: Monday, 24 April
Ben: to get 2nd WD of RDF/A Primer publishing approval at 8 May SWBPD telecon we need to distribute final editor's draft by Monday 24 April. I hope to distribute a draft by then
ACTION: Ben draft mail to Guus and David regarding continuation of HTML TF work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-htmltf-minutes.html#action01]
ACTION: [DONE] Ben integrate Jeremy's actions into list of issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/10-htmltf-minutes.html#action11]
ACTION: Mark, Steven, and Ralph respond to Ben's off-list draft of response to Bjoern [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/13-htmltf-minutes.html#action05]
-- done; Mark about to press 'send' on his comments
ACTION: Ben start separate mail threads on remaining discussion topics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action04] [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] [CONTINUES]
Ben: likely done by next week after I integrate Mark's comments
ACTION: [DONE] Ben update his bookmarklet for XHTML mode [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/13-htmltf-minutes.html#action12]
Ben: this update was a lot of fun. It works in Mozilla and Firefox, not 100% in Opera and not in Safari.
Steven: it used to work on Opera
Ben: the DOM API changed slightly; it's supposed to be more conformant now.
Steven: seems to work on Ben's bookmark page but not on Ben's home page
Ben: you'll find two paragraphs on the XHTML version of my home page that I've marked-up with <meta>. It turned out to be quite a bit easier than I had expected
ACTION: once Steven sends editors' draft of XHTML2, all TF members take a look and comment on showstopper issues only [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
Steven: just needs more cycles from the editors. There is nothing the TF can really contribute to getting those cycles
Mark: re Primer; where do Ben and Ralph see the spec itself going?
Ben: we agreed that the normative spec for RDF/A would be part of the XHTML specification
Mark: so if we're going to talk about XHTML 1 modules these need something to refer to
Ben: they (we!) can refer to the primer. We have a syntax that is pretty darn good and we now have to make it work in XHTML 1. So we have to see how much the browser vendors will agree to implement
Mark: we have to decide what it is that we call "RDF/A". The primer cannot be the normative definition. Can we revisit the other document? something more formal defining the attributes?
Ben: it's OK to refer to the other document as input to the next WG
Ralph: it would indeed be too bad to have to maintain normative specifications in two parallel documents; an XHTML2 WD and separate RDF/A and CURIE WDs. I look to the HTML WG to advise on where to most effectively work during the month of May
Mark: there is some material from my IPTC work that ought to be added to the spec. Did Ben do anything subconsciously when implementing his bookmarklet that hasn't yet made it into the spec?
Ben: I really worked just from the Primer
Mark: I think I could update the RDF/A spec next week. The HTML WG needs the feedback on the reference document
Steven: the XHTML2 editors' expectation is to integrate the RDF/A WD plus more recent agreements
Ben: would it help for Mark to update the independent document that we have, or do you have it all swapped-in?
Steven: I think I have it all swapped-in, but the results will need to be checked
Ben: I want to be sure we spend the cycles we have in the right place
Steven: the XHTML2 spec is changing in several places, not just in RDF/A
Mark: I think we need a document that we are confident is up-to-date, and sooner rather than later. E.g. if "someone" decides they want to start adding RDF/A support to, say, Redland, we want them to have the right details
Ben: what is going to help the HTML WG get the work out faster?
Steven: it will help to have everything in one place, so it would not be wasted work. We have noticed in the past that we'd interpreted things differently
Ralph: a possibility for Mark's proposed writing is to focus a normative proposal draft on an RDF/A XHTML 1.1 module. See proposed charter for SemWeb Deployment WG [Member-only link]
Mark: I wasn't thinking that a new spec draft had to be done quickly, I just wanted to insure that we'd captured everything we'd agreed and some recent IPTC work that isn't written down
Ben: I have received feedback on the topic of a name change. The overwhelming advice is "if you're going to change the name, do it right away". I believe we need to address our main audience of HTML authors
Mark: there are many strands in the email discussion; I'd like to identify two things; (1) a language and (2) a tagging process; an action. I don't have a problem calling the language "RDF/A". The tagging process is above the language and I don't think we should call that "RDF/A". E.g. Microformats is an approach, not a language. the "microformats" process can be summed-up in a few words. We can talk technical details about the language separately from [high-level goals] such as "structured blogging". It's much more important to come up with a phrase or word that describes this structured metadata
<Ralph:> [+1 to Mark]
Steven: there are plusses and minuses to using the name "RDF/A". "RDF" is tainted in some parts of the community but it could help to make it clear that RDF is a broad concept and is more than RDF/XML
Ben: this could work well with Mark's second name; we need not mention RDF until people want to look deeply
Steven: think about "meta" and "link"; suggestion: metalink
<MarkB_> metal ink!
Ben: Hal Abelson sugestion: Semantic HTML, aka
SHTML though the latter has an unfortunate pronunciation
... could also say "Structured HTML".
Steven: I think apache uses .shtml for server-side HTML
Ralph: agree with Mark's two items to name
<MarkB_> [Things to do with 'inline' I quite like.....'embedding'...etc., for the 'approach' side.]
PROPOSED: the technical work may still be called "RDF/A" but the overall approach to provide semantic structure in HTML gets a new name
Mark: seconded. We could call the language "RDFA" -- i.e. without '/' or perhaps "RDFa". I originally put the '/' in just to align with RDF/XML, RDF/N3
Ben: I like the proposal to take out the '/'
Ralph: I'm neutral on removing the '/'. I suspect I'm the one who most frequently writes "RDF/N3", though I tend toward symmetry
Steven: I tend toward keeping the '/'
Ben: my goal is to get people to understand the HTML language and then later realize that it's RDF and therefore RDF need not be as complicated as they had heard
Mark: was recently talking with a commentator who suggested that RDF was not as difficult as perceived. It's important that people realize the benefits of precise semantics
Ben: there's more to the marketing proposal than a name; it points to W3C as the repository for the normative specs
[no disagreement]
Ben: pointers to specific techniques, e.g. for bloggers
Ralph: I'm all in favor of letting other organizations share the fun of providing community forums to help in the design and deployment of this approach
Mark: this is a key technology for X-port.net; for example, we're doing a blogging interface
Ben: Creative Commons is offering to host a site but happy to defer to someone else
Mark: an implementation of a really good RDF/A site would be using lots of other technologies as well. Our goal is quick and easy publication of metadata
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ask if we really want just one site?
Ralph: we should find a name for the approach that we can register in DNS
<Steven> nk is a countrycode
<Steven> metali.nk
<Steven> or me.tali.nk
<MarkB_> LoL
<MarkB_> iLi.nk? (Like iPod...)
<Ralph> ["metali" -- pronounced met'-al-ly -- has a nice ring to me]
<Zakim> MarkB_, you wanted to mention a podcast I heard recently about microformats
Mark: everyone wants to publish dates when they blog, so I'm quite into the calendaring application. I'd like introductory examples that are really introductory -- that don't get into too many hard details
Ben: I will have a new editor's draft of Primer by Friday
[adjourned]