See also: IRC log, previous 2008-04-17
<mhausenblas> previous 2008-04-17
<msporny> thanks Michael :)
<msporny> sure, why not.
<mhausenblas> ScribeNick: mhausenblas
<msporny> http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
<scribe> ACTION: [NEW] 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] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: [NEW] 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] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: [NEW] Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] 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]
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] 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]
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] 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: [PENDING] 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: [PENDING] 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: [PENDING] 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: [PENDING] Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]
<Ralph> issue 114
Manu: Using RDFa in dynamic content
<Ralph> Ralph's proposed response
<inserted> scribenick: ralph
Michael: this is a hard problem
to deal with
... doing something locally in Ajax and then piping it to
another system
Steven: it depends on the order of processing
<mhausenblas> See for example what we did in i r s
Steven: if the dynamic part is
done first then, e.g., Ben's applet will just work
... our processing rules say "if you find such-and-such an
attribute, then do this ..."
... the rules don't say how you go about finding the
attributes; this can be part of some dynamic process
<msporny> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/113
Michael: I'm wondering how I would implement a dynamically-loaded RDFa from clicking on a DIV and then send that RDF elsewhere
Manu: your question, Michael,
seems more appropriate for issue 113
... issue 113 concerns copy & paste operations; clipboard
operations
... how to export XHTML such that the namespaces are
preserved
Shane: in Michael's situation, a
server-side RDFa implementation will have difficulty but a
client-side RDFa implementation won't
... we don't make a distinction between the server- and client-
processing in the spec
... so if the client has dynamic changes, a server-side RDFa
implementation simply won't see them
Michael: and I see that as a
problem
... from a Web2.0 developer point of view I believe this will
be a problem
... I am willing to write some suggested 'good practices' in
the RDFa wiki
Manu: yes, would be nice to have a set of recipes for how to communicate data from a client back to the server
<scribe> scribenick: mhausenblas
Proposal: Use Ralphs answer
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0116.html
... and Michael's good practice description at the RDFa Wiki
how to deal with this issue
<msporny> PROPOSE: ISSUE-114 use Ralphs response to reply to PFWG - while changing the syntax document would take a long time, we will create a section on the wiki to address dynamic modification of XHTML, and use Ralph's answer http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0116.html and have Michael update the language to note that he's working on getting a recipes page on the wiki.
<msporny> PROPOSE: ISSUE-114 Manu to use Ralphs response to reply to PFWG - it is not obvious that there is a tractable solution to the full problem, we will create a section on the wiki to address dynamic modification of XHTML, and use Ralph's answer http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0116.html.
<msporny> PROPOSE: ISSUE-114 Manu to use Ralphs response to reply to PFWG - it is not obvious that there is a tractable solution to the full problem, we will create a section on the wiki to address dynamic modification of XHTML.
<Ralph> (with some reference to the special challenge of server-side processors)
+1
<Ralph> Mark expresses support for Ralph's draft response
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-114 Manu to use Ralph's response to reply to PFWG. No change in the syntax document needed as it is not obvious that there is a tractable solution to the full problem. We will create a section on the RDFa community Wiki to address dynamic modification of XHTML.
<scribe> ACTION: Manu to reply PFWG regarding ISSUE-114 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
<scribe> ACTION: Michael to add a section to Wiki regarding ISSUE-114 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
Shane: How about resolution in tracker?
Ralph: That is: No change in the syntax document regarding ISSUE-114
<msporny> Manu: +1
<msporny> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/116
<Ralph> Ralph's proposed response
Shane: Ralph's comment is
good
... But we don't actually use XMLNS
... that is we don't rely on it in the spec
Steven: That means we do have interop with HTML
Shane: Regarding validation
<ShaneM> I love this part of the reply: The Group does not feel that this would be
<ShaneM> a brief discussion.
PROPOSE: ISSUE-116 Manu to use Ralphs response (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0115.html)
<msporny> +1
<ShaneM> +1
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-116 Manu to use Ralphs response to reply to PFWG. No change in the syntax document needed.
Manu: Let's contact both Elias and Lee and ask if there comments still apply (as major parts have changed)
<msporny> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/11
PROPOSE: Respond to Elias and Lee that the Primer has changed substantially and invite for new comments
<msporny> +1
<msporny> Manu: We also want to close this issue.
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-11 Michael to respond to Elias and Lee that the RDFa Primer has changed substantially and invite for new comments. This issue is closed.
<msporny> +1
<scribe> ACTION: Michael to reply to Elias and Lee regarding ISSUE-11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
<msporny> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/43
<Ralph> (while those comments for issue 11 refer to "Primer" at the time they were written, recall that the most current version of the specification was in the Primer)
<msporny> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/43
<Ralph> Ben believes issue 43 is closed
Ralph: Can be done by Michael when answering ISSUE-11
PROPOSE: ISSUE-43 Michael to answer Lee and Elias together with ISSUE-11
<msporny> PROPOSE: ISSUE-43 Michael to answer Lee's comments for Issue 43 in the same e-mail as Issue 11, noting that the Primer and Syntax Document have changed significantly and issues seem to have been addressed. Invite for further comments.
<msporny> PROPOSE: ISSUE-43 Michael to answer Lee's comments for Issue 43 in the same e-mail as Issue 11, noting that the Primer and Syntax Document have changed significantly and issues seem to have been addressed. Invite for further comments. This issue is closed, no changes to the documents.
+1
<Ralph> +1
<ShaneM> +1
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-43 Michael to answer Lee's comments for Issue 43 in the same e-mail as Issue 11, noting that the Primer and Syntax Document have changed significantly and issues seem to have been addressed. Invite for further comments. This issue is closed, no changes to the documents.
<msporny> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/113
Manu: Question how to deal with clipboard operations (fragments of XHTML+RDFa)
Shane: Does not generally apply ... can't be done
Michael: USe case is important
(that's what people know from uF, such as hCard, hCalendar,
etc.)
... but agree with Shane
Ralph: Namespace is trivial
Shane: We need to ensure that the whole document is processed
<Ralph> Shane: specifically w.r.t. the comment "Please specify processing rules and conditions that apply to document fragments containing RDFa" we can't do this
<Ralph> Ralph: I agree
+1
Shane: We should write about it in good practice on the Wiki, for example
<Ralph> PROPOSE: our response to issue 113 is "RDFa 1.0 processing is not specified on document _fragments_"
+1
<msporny> +1
<ShaneM> +1
<Ralph> Shane: not sure if Ben would agree
<Ralph> Ralph: so let's wait 'till next telecon
<ShaneM> Just for context. What I mean here is that fragments can move among documents, but they MUST be processed in the context of the new document. They CANNOT be processed independently. Period.
<Steven> +1 to that
<Michael> regarding SWD LC-extension see http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#item03
<Steven> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa#RDFa_schedule
[adjourned]