14:53:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:53:22 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc
14:53:28 <Ralph> Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML TF
14:53:34 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:53:37 <Ralph> zakim, this will be rdfa
14:53:37 <Zakim> ok, Ralph; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:53:48 <Ralph> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0158.html
14:54:04 <Ralph> Chair: Ben
14:54:21 <Ralph> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html
14:55:35 <msporny> So, does the "RRS" in RRSAgent stand for "Ralph R. Swick"?
14:55:48 <Ralph> bingo :)  you win the prize
14:55:51 <msporny> :)
14:55:55 <msporny> nice
14:56:01 <Ralph> Regrets: Michael, Simone, Steven
14:56:31 <msporny> I take it you wrote Zakim, as well? (rrs-bridgg)?
14:56:41 <Ralph> the current bot is 3rd generation, based on Dave Beckett's logger
14:57:06 <Ralph> the first generation was a personal tool that I invoked only for meetings where I was present (thus the name)
14:57:21 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:57:26 <Ralph> yes to Zakim as well
14:57:34 <msporny> aah... neat :)
14:58:28 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
14:58:30 <Zakim> +??P13
14:58:36 <Zakim> +??P14
14:58:38 <Zakim> -??P14
14:58:38 <Zakim> +??P14
14:58:39 <msporny> zakim, I am ??P14
14:58:39 <Zakim> +msporny; got it
14:58:39 <ShaneM> zakim, ??P13 is ShaneM
14:58:40 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
14:58:42 <Zakim> +Ralph
15:02:35 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida
15:05:19 <danbri> may I join?
15:05:24 <Ralph> rrsagent, please make record public
15:05:28 <Ralph> why, DanBri?
15:06:13 <danbri> trying to catchup on state of RDFa. Promise to listen/learn quietly...
15:06:15 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
15:06:24 <markbirbeck> zakim, code?
15:06:24 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
15:06:49 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:06:52 <Zakim> +markbirbeck
15:07:24 <Zakim> +??P13
15:07:30 <ShaneM> zakim, ??P13 is ShaneM
15:07:30 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
15:07:59 <benadida> benadida has joined #rdfa
15:07:59 <Zakim> +??P20
15:08:58 <Ralph> +DanBri
15:09:05 <benadida> zakim, pick a victim
15:09:05 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ShaneM
15:09:18 <Ralph> scribenick: Ralph
15:11:23 <Ralph> Ben: regarding issue 103, last week's discussion about issue 116 seemed to touch on this
15:13:41 <Ralph> Topic: Action Items
15:14:01 <Ralph> [DONE] ACTION: Manu to reply PFWG regarding ISSUE-114 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
15:14:11 <Ralph> [DONE] ACTION: Michael to add a section to Wiki regarding ISSUE-114 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
15:14:21 <Ralph> [DONE]  ACTION: Michael to reply to Elias and Lee regarding ISSUE-11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
15:14:33 <Ralph> 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]
15:14:36 <Ralph> -- continues
15:14:58 <Ralph> Ben: I talked with Fabien and Ivan in Beijing.  No obstacles yet.
15:15:04 <Ralph> 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]
15:15:06 <Ralph> -- continues
15:15:25 <Ralph> Shane: I believe this action should be closed
15:15:32 <Ralph> ... the XHTML WG has already responded to the TAG
15:15:49 <Ralph> ... the XHTML2 WG resolved this 3 months ago
15:17:34 <Ralph> -- withdrawn
15:17:54 <Ralph> Ben: I did chat with Tim in Beijing and he fully supports updating the XHTML1 namespace document
15:18:05 <Ralph> ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
15:18:06 <Ralph> -- continues
15:18:21 <Ralph> [DONE] 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]
15:18:41 <benadida> --> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0153.html
15:19:02 <Ralph> ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
15:19:05 <Ralph> -- continues
15:19:17 <Ralph> ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]
15:19:18 <Ralph> -- continues
15:19:35 <Ralph> ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
15:20:25 <Ralph> -- continues
15:20:38 <Ralph> ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
15:20:39 <Ralph> -- continues
15:20:55 <markbirbeck> Ralph...yes it is done. :)
15:20:58 <Ralph> ACTION: Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
15:21:01 <Ralph> -- withdrawn
15:24:28 <Ralph> Topic: Implementation Report
15:24:32 <benadida> --> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/implementation-report/
15:25:08 <Ralph> $Id: 01-rdfa-irc.txt,v 1.37 2008/05/01 16:22:07 swick Exp $
15:26:27 <danbri> (i wonder if http://2008.xtech.org/public/schedule/detail/528 is an implementation report; if implementors include publishers, and not only parser-writers)
15:27:06 <Ralph> Shane: remember, we don't need the implementation report to _start_ CR
15:27:19 <Ralph> Ralph: yes, but we're hoping for a short CR so let's not let it slip
15:28:23 <Ralph> Manu: does every implementation have to pass every test?
15:28:38 <Ralph> Ralph: no, but every feature should be implemented by at least two
15:28:50 <Ralph> ... and ideally there will be at least two implementations that do pass everything
15:29:25 <Ralph> Ben: we can include every implementation in the report unless we lose touch with a developer and can't get responses to a test failure
15:29:38 <Ralph> ... I do think there should be at least one javascript implementation in the report
15:29:55 <Ralph> ... Elias is working on a javascript API for the test harness
15:30:12 <Ralph> Topic: Test Cases
15:30:20 <Ralph> Ben: status of tests?
15:30:35 <Ralph> Manu: there are only two pending; let's defer this to next telecon
15:30:47 <markbirbeck> Ok...now it's really done, Ralph!
15:30:55 <Ralph> pointer, Mark?
15:31:13 <Ralph> Manu: I'm not aware of any new tests entering the pipeline
15:33:18 <Ralph> Mark: change made in Shane's CVS repository, will be in the next editors' draft he publishes
15:33:31 <Ralph> Topic: ISSUE 113
15:33:38 <benadida> --> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/113
15:33:38 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/113 Issue 113
15:34:16 <Ralph> s/ISSUE 113/ISSUE-113/
15:34:46 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#item06 previous discussion
15:35:05 <Ralph> Manu: the resolution boiled down to "we don't specify this"
15:35:29 <Ralph> ... Shane pointed out that the meaning of a fragment may change entirely when put into another document
15:36:42 <Ralph> Ben: it's possible to write a chunk of XHTML+RDFa that will preserve its meaning across documents
15:37:01 <Ralph> Shane: I disagree; in the context of this document we have no formal definition of the behaviour
15:38:07 <Ralph> Ben: in Creative Commons use case we specify a fragment that means what the author _intends_ it to mean when pasted into any document
15:38:11 <danbri> (blogged/syndicated markup is another common scenario)
15:38:14 <Ralph> Ralph: but the subject of the triple changes
15:38:23 <Ralph> Ben: yes, that's why I said "intended to mean"
15:38:40 <Ralph> ... in the Use Case document we do talk about fragments, e.g. of widgets
15:39:16 <Ralph> ... how should we acknowledge this?
15:39:24 <Ralph> Manu: in the wiki perhaps?
15:39:59 <Ralph> Mark: at the top of the processing rules section there's something that talks about _usually_ starting at the root
15:40:08 <Ralph> ... we could make this explicit
15:41:22 <Ralph> Ralph: I disagree that we should specify the interpretation of a parsed fragment
15:41:46 <Ralph> Mark: it's very easy to say "here is the context, begin parsing"
15:42:14 <Ralph> ... not saying we need to spell out how to do it
15:42:24 <Ralph> ... just that it's possible to answer Micah's point
15:43:04 <Ralph> Ben: I'll try to craft a short non-normative paragraph
15:43:54 <danbri> (http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-webarch-extlang#Local articulates something like this requirement)
15:43:56 <Ralph> Mark: the searchmonkey documentation mentions "dataRSS"
15:44:33 <Ralph> ... in there you'll find @resource and a statement that "this is RDFa inside dataRSS"
15:44:45 <Ralph> ... I hope Ben's paragraph will be sympathetic to this
15:45:26 <msporny> +1 to draft small paragraph
15:46:09 <Ralph> ACTION: Ben draft a non-normative paragraph on RDFa fragments for review
15:47:11 <Ralph> Ralph: but issue 113 asks for processing rules that apply when there is no <head> nor <body> and we're _not_ going to do that
15:47:22 <Ralph> Mark: Micah also asks that we 
15:47:28 <Ralph> ... "mention the possibility"
15:47:33 <Ralph> ... we can mention the possibility
15:47:42 <Ralph> ... without describing normative behaviour
15:48:09 <Ralph> Topic: ISSUE-115
15:48:21 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/115 issue 115; @content
15:48:56 <Ralph> Ben: PFWG's concern is that any markup in the element content is lost when @content is added
15:49:02 <benadida> response --> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0032.html
15:49:22 <benadida> "I like the idea of emphasizing this point, that @content should be used 
15:49:22 <benadida> as a "last resort," and we'll discuss it in the group."
15:50:20 <Ralph> Ralph: the point of @content was to override element content when it's necessary to do so
15:50:32 <Ralph> ... if the author mis-uses this, then, well ...
15:50:39 <Ralph> Ben: but should we change anything in the spec?
15:50:49 <Ralph> Mark: we have discussed having multiple versions
15:50:55 <Ralph> ... could have two objects
15:51:10 <Ralph> ... we don't have this multiple value approach anywhere
15:51:40 <Ralph> s/anywhere/anywhere else and shouldn't have it here/
15:51:47 <ShaneM> "Note that the use of @content prohibits the inclusion of rich markup in your content.  It is a tool of last resort.  If the inline content of an element is meaningful, then documents should rely upon that rather than duplicating that content using the @content attribute."
15:51:55 <Ralph> ... this feature also allows a distinction between XMLLiteral and plain literal
15:52:16 <msporny> +1 for Shane's wording...
15:52:59 <Ralph> Shane: I think we could put guidance such as the above in the document
15:53:33 <Ralph> Mark: object to "tool of last resort".  There are use cases where the thing you want in the human-readable part is different from what you want in the machine-readable part
15:53:54 <Ralph> Ben: the point is that _if_ the value can be rendered on screen, then don't use @content
15:54:24 <Ralph> ... Bob Ducharme used to show examples where everything in the HEAD was hidden on-screen and I think we want to discourage this practice
15:55:20 <ShaneM> "Note that the use of @content prohibits the inclusion of rich markup in your content. If the inline content of an element is what you are trying to convey, then documents should rely upon that rather than duplicating that content using the @content attribute."
15:55:21 <Ralph> Ralph: I'd be satisfied with Shane's paragraph with the "tool of last resort" sentence dropped.
15:56:12 <markbirbeck> oops...just remembered that Steven asked me to give his apologies!
15:56:23 <markbirbeck> Very sorry... :)
15:56:24 <benadida> PROPOSE to resolve ISSUE-115 by adding a short non-normative paragraph approximately as follows "Note that the use of @content prohibits the inclusion of rich markup in your content. If the inline content of an element is what you are trying to convey, then documents should rely upon that rather than duplicating that content using the @content attribute."
15:56:33 <Ralph> +1
15:56:36 <markbirbeck> thanks, Ralph
15:56:37 <msporny> Mark, Steven e-mailed before the call
15:56:42 <msporny> +1
15:56:47 <markbirbeck> +1
15:56:58 <Ralph> RESOLVED: ISSUE-115 closed by adding a short non-normative paragraph approximately as follows "Note that the use of @content prohibits the inclusion of rich markup in your content. If the inline content of an element is what you are trying to convey, then documents should rely upon that rather than duplicating that content using the @content attribute."
15:57:09 <Ralph> ACTION: Shane update editors' draft with the resolution to issue 115
15:58:35 <Ralph> ACTION: Ben respond to the commenters on issue 115
15:58:57 <Ralph> Topic: ISSUE-104
15:58:59 <benadida> --> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/104
15:59:39 <Ralph> PROPOSE propose to copy the datatype definition from:
15:59:39 <Ralph> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080402/#s_schema
15:59:54 <msporny> +1
16:00:14 <Ralph> RESOLVED: Copy the CURIE datatype definition from http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080402/#s_schema
16:00:44 <Ralph> Shane: the XHTML2 WG had a comment that the correct name is URIorSafeCURIE, not URIorCURIE
16:00:58 <Ralph> Ben: with '[]' it's a SafeCURIE
16:01:06 <Ralph> ... so it's just a wording change
16:01:31 <Ralph> RESOLVED: change the wording from URIorCURIE to URIorSafeCURIE
16:02:05 <markbirbeck> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#sec_6.3.1.
16:02:18 <Ralph> Mark: back on @content ...
16:02:47 <Ralph> ... should we use inline markup everywhere whenever we can and minimize use of @content?
16:05:02 <Ralph> ... e.g. use something other than META?
16:06:05 <Ralph> Ralph: some of the @content examples have other pedagogical uses and I wouldn't want to do a wholesale replacement
16:07:42 <Ralph> Ralph: and about the "small" changes to the processing rules for keeping "useless" nodes?
16:07:52 <Ralph> Mark: they're in the CVS and will be in the next editors' draft
16:11:13 <Ralph> ACTION: Ben send announcement of @instanceof change and diffs to processing rules
16:11:56 <ShaneM_> ShaneM_ has joined #rdfa
16:11:59 <Zakim> -ShaneM
16:13:15 <Ralph> Ben: I'll take a look at the timeline in the wiki
16:13:42 <Ralph> ... the SWD timeline sent on Tuesday should be easy for us to meet
16:14:15 <Ralph> Ralph: regrets for next week
16:14:38 <Ralph> Mark: also regrets for next week
16:15:11 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
16:15:11 <markbirbeck> There is only one use of @content that should use inline text, and it's in Appendix A.
16:15:37 <ShaneM> Appendix A?  really?  Appendix A is the DTD implementation isn't it?
16:15:38 <markbirbeck> (I mention that to save people doing a scan.)
16:15:55 <ShaneM> oh.... that appendix A.  didn't we remove that?
16:16:11 <ShaneM> we voted to remove that appendix.  It is no longer in the source.
16:16:56 <ShaneM> Sorry - fell off the call and can't call back in.  conference is restricted.
16:16:57 <Ralph> yeah, in fact Appendix A should use <h1 about="" property="dc:title">Internet Applications</h1>
16:17:03 <Ralph> [adjourned]
16:18:11 <Ralph> (thanks, Mark; I'm happy with your conclusion :)
16:18:37 <ShaneM> I have to go anyway.  Ben, do you want me to publish right now, or wait until you have reviewed Mark's mail from last night?
16:18:44 <ShaneM> I have made the changes you requested during the call already.
16:18:49 <benadida> no publish right now.
16:18:57 <benadida> no, COMMA, publish right now :)_
16:19:14 <Ralph> no waiting :)
16:19:43 <Zakim> -danbri
16:19:44 <Zakim> -msporny
16:19:45 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida
16:19:47 <Zakim> -markbirbeck
16:19:47 <Zakim> -Ralph
16:19:47 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
16:19:48 <Zakim> Attendees were msporny, ShaneM, Ralph, Ben_Adida, markbirbeck, danbri
16:19:55 <Ralph> rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:19:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
16:21:00 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> I see 12 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-actions.rdf :
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> 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] [1]
16:21:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc#T15-14-33
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> 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] [2]
16:21:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc#T15-15-04
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [3]
16:21:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc#T15-18-05
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] [4]
16:21:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc#T15-19-02
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05] [5]
16:21:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc#T15-19-17
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [6]
16:21:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc#T15-19-35
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [7]
16:21:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc#T15-20-38
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] [8]
16:21:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc#T15-20-58
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben draft a non-normative paragraph on RDFa fragments for review [9]
16:21:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc#T15-46-09
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Shane update editors' draft with the resolution to issue 115 [10]
16:21:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc#T15-57-09
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben respond to the commenters on issue 115 [11]
16:21:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc#T15-58-35
16:21:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben send announcement of @instanceof change and diffs to processing rules [12]
16:21:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc#T16-11-13
16:21:10 <markbirbeck> Sorry...Appendix A has gone. :) So we don't have any uses of @content when inline mark-up is possible.
16:21:32 <ShaneM> new draft is at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080501/