See also: IRC log, previous 2008-04-10
<Steven> Hi, Like Ralph, and for the same reason, I will be late
<Ralph> [Chairs telecon]
<markbirbeck> I'm not going to be able to make the telecon, I'm afraid...things have been very hectic this week.
<benadida> thoughts on primer?
<markbirbeck> I am nearly done on a new draft, but didn't get the few hours I needed to finish it off.
<markbirbeck> Will try to do it tomorrow.
<benadida> yes, that would be really fantastic.
<Steven> I like the primer.
<Steven> I have some small comments on the current one
<markbirbeck> I'm so sorry...but I haven't even read your latest draft. That shows how bad things are! (I normally read it the moment it comes off the press. ;))
<Steven> I will be late like Ralph (on the chairs call at the moment)
<Steven> I liked the comment about tags not in namespaces being like all files in one folder
Ben: Mark hasn't been able to
read the Primer yet.
... He wanted no namespaces and more detail in the Primer.
<scribe> http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
<scribe> ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL transform transferred to W3C [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
Ben: I'm waiting on Fabien for that one.
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with Steven, Ralph, and TAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]
Ben: Ralph needs to give an update on the media type discussion.
<Ralph> [yes, I owe Ben some language on media types]
<Steven> media type is ongoing within W3C; seems to be going well
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
<Steven> I think TimBL will say something about it at AC meeting in Beijing
Ben: Waiting for response from Mark.
<scribe> ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to @typeof [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]
<Steven> I have some small comments
Ben: Bob Du Charme had some good tweaks to it, which were integrated.
<Steven> Not sure about using the @ notation in the primer
Ben: Some of the diagrams were tweaked.
<Steven> There is some confusion between the names of the old and new HTML WGs
Ben: @rel, @about - @ notation now documented.
Manu: The document looks good to me so far, I think it's ready to go to WG
Ben: Ralph said he was astonished
it was shorter... but that may mean WG has a negative reaction
to that.
... I don't think we should lengthen it.
Manu: the wiki should fill the gap
<Ralph> I don't think we should bring *everything* from the old Primer back in, but I want more time to look for gaps
<benadida> before we talk to the WG? How much more time?
<Ralph> but, again, if Manu, Steven, and Mark feel the current draft is good enough to replace the WD then I'll accept that consensus
Ben: Ralph's not going to Beijing, so he should be able to handle it before next Tuesday.
<Ralph> has Mark replied previously?
Ben: Steven seems to only has minor comments, Manu likes the current draft, Mark still needs to respond.
<benadida> Mark has sent private comments that were overall positive but that I cannot count as a full endorsement yet :)
<Ralph> then I propose we show it to the WG and ask for their comments
<benadida> Steven, assuming the chance for minor edits, do you think this is good to send to the WG?
Ben: Manu thinks Primer is good enough to go to the WG, minor edits may still need to be done.
<Steven> I'd be ok with that
Ben: Primer could be written in a
variety of different ways, we need to push forward and get it
out there.
... Primer is mainly for people that just know HTML - it's a
high level overview.
<Ralph> I absolutely agree that the exposition in the new Primer editor's draft is better; I'm mostly worried about coverage
Manu: I think it is a good sign that we're starting to re-use material in the Primer in our presentations on RDFa.
<benadida> a big change in this primer is that we're not going for 100% coverage, we're going for enough coverage to *start* writing RDFa, and then you go to recipes on the wiki for more.
<Ralph> sure, "enough" is a judgement call :)
Manu: Really, we should see if Mark is okay with it and if we have that much consensus here, then we should push it to the WG.
<Ralph> I hope that the Wiki material will lead to improved versions of the Primer
<benadida> ACTION: Ben to chat immediately with Mark and see if the Primer is "good enough" for WG review. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
<benadida> Steven, if you're reading this, do send a list of the issues with the Primer, happy to incorporate small changes
<Steven> Ben, I will send them tomorrow
Manu: I thought it was supposed to be a GRDDL pointer
<benadida> +1
Ben: Yep - same here.
<benadida> ISSUE-109: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/109
<benadida> "do something with @cite"
<Ralph> [I'd be happy to offically take an action to draft something for the XHTML namespace document]
<Ralph> -1 to taking up @cite in this version
Manu: I agree with Mark's response.
Ben: We're in agreement that we
shouldn't do anything with @cite.
... Mark agrees with that as well.
... Don't know what Steven or Michael would say.
... Ralph agrees, but he thinks the response should be more
complete.
Ralph: For @cite the answers
clear, we defer to a future version.
... But we should be more specific in the response.
Ben: So we should formally restate Mark's answer?
Ralph: Mark gives far too much detail - I don't think we need to give all that detail.
Ben: So, we're not doing anything with @cite.
Steven: I agree.
... We should say we considered it, but there are others that
could fit in this category - we decided to defer in the name of
simplicity.
<benadida> PROPOSE to resolve ISSUE-109: "We considered @cite but realized that many other attributes would then require RDFa interpretation and that doing so is not simple. We defer this issue to a future version of RDFa."
Ralph: We may want to find those discussions.
Manu: +1 for current PROPOSAL
<Steven> +1
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-109: "We considered @cite but realized that many other attributes would then require RDFa interpretation and that doing so is not simple. We defer this issue to a future version of RDFa.
<benadida> ACTION: Ben to respond to ISSUE-109 with (if possible) pointers to past discussion of @cite [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
Ben: Issue 110 is about @src being subject or object.
<Steven> link to response?
<benadida> Mark's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0311.html
Manu: I thought the response was good.
Ben: First on the issue - do we agree we shouldn't re-open it.
Manu: Yes.
Ralph: Yes.
Steven: Yes, agreed - don't re-open.
Ben: We should respond with the summary that Ralph wrote up and a pointer to Mark's e-mail.
<benadida> PROPOSAL: "on ISSUE-110, we considered @src in both subject and object positions, and resolved that the current situation - it's equivalent to @about - is more useful to authors."
Manu: +1 for proposal
Steven: +1 for proposal
Ralph: +1 for proposal
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-110: "we considered @src in both subject and object positions, and resolved that the current situation - it's equivalent to @about - is more useful to authors."
Ben: Steven, Ralph - about the
Primer - do you agree that we ask Mark and Michael and see if
they're fine with it - and push it forward?
... we need a document that people are comfortable with
pointing people to a document.
... Are you okay with that line of thinking?
Ralph: Yes - we don't want to hold this up.
Manu: http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/
Manu: First one is test #100
<benadida> xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org#"
Manu: Is that correct?
<Ralph> [looking up RFC 3986 http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html to see if that's a legitimate URI]
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/0100.xhtml
<Ralph> [actually, http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.2.2 is where we need to look]
<benadida> Ben: so this will likely fail for Firefox-based JavaScript (mine and Elias's), but that's okay we can document it.
< msporny > we had agreed that the proper canonicalization for our tests involved stuffing all namespaces into each top-level element.
<benadida> TC 100: +1 from Ben
< msporny > TC 100: +1 from Manu
<benadida> TC 101: +1 from Ben
< msporny > TC 101: +1 from Manu
<benadida> TC 102: +1 from Ben
< msporny > TC 102: +1 from Manu
<benadida> TC103: +1 from Ben
< msporny > TC 103: +1 from Manu
Ralph: Maybe we should use a different example namespace
Ben: Let's change to "http://example.org/"
Ralph: Let's change to "http://rdfa.example.org/"
<Ralph> or http://example.org/rdf/
<Ralph> (which has the same number of octets :)
Ben: In an ideal world, great.
Ralph: Agree - it'll take a long time to do that.
<Ralph> I'm not sure how long it will take
<Ralph> but I am pretty sure it will take longer than 2 months and that's too long IMHO
Steven: Functional is very nice - but would take longer than we have right now. In a future version, we might want to do it in functional terms.
Ralph: It will depend on the author - functional or algorithmic.
Steven: It's good for implementors, but isn't so good for authors.
Ralph: We'll get feedback over the next year or two.
Steven: Maybe we can do a normative one which is algorithmic, and a non-normative one that is functional?
Ben: We shouldn't commit ourselves to doing something like that right now.
Ralph: Yes, we shouldn't add to the workload that we're currently under.
<benadida> PROPOSE: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but, given the community pull to finalize RDFa, it would take too long to write up an error-free functional description."
<Ralph> +1
< msporny > +1
<benadida> +1 from Steven on the phone
RESOLUTION: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but, given the community pull to finalize RDFa, it would take too long to write up a functional description."