IRC log of rdfa on 2008-05-15
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:53:52 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
- 14:53:52 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-rdfa-irc
- 14:54:05 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #rdfa
- 14:54:15 [msporny]
- zakim, this will be SW_SWD(RDFa)
- 14:54:15 [Zakim]
- ok, msporny; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
- 14:54:48 [msporny]
- Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML Task Force
- 14:55:06 [msporny]
- previous, http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html
- 14:55:29 [msporny]
- Chair: Manu
- 14:55:43 [msporny]
- rrsagent, make log public
- 14:55:52 [msporny]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 14:55:52 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/15-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
- 14:56:24 [ShaneM]
- I think we are going to be a little light on attendes today
- 14:56:39 [msporny]
- yeah...
- 14:56:45 [msporny]
- do you know if Ralph is gonna be here?
- 14:57:02 [msporny]
- 3 people would be enough to get through Test Cases.
- 14:57:49 [Ralph]
- Ralph has joined #rdfa
- 14:57:55 [msporny]
- yaaay, Ralph!
- 14:58:09 [Ralph]
- ??
- 14:58:18 [msporny]
- Just happy to see you, Ralph :)
- 14:58:21 [Zakim]
- SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
- 14:58:28 [Zakim]
- +Ralph
- 14:58:28 [Ralph]
- ah :) well, thanks
- 14:58:39 [Ralph]
- happy to be here
- 14:59:17 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 14:59:21 [msporny]
- zakim, I am ??P1
- 14:59:21 [Zakim]
- +msporny; got it
- 14:59:28 [Steven]
- Hi gang.
- 14:59:48 [msporny]
- zakim, who's on the call?
- 14:59:48 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Ralph, msporny
- 14:59:51 [Ralph]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0116.html
- 15:00:04 [Steven]
- There is a national ADSL breakdown here (3 days long alread), so the only internet connection I have is via the same mobile phone I will be phoning in on
- 15:00:14 [Steven]
- so expect poor sound
- 15:00:37 [msporny]
- no chance you're going to be able to see Test Cases to review them, then, Steven?
- 15:00:51 [Steven]
- I'll try
- 15:00:56 [msporny]
- Shane, are you going to be able to dial in?
- 15:01:11 [ShaneM]
- I am in
- 15:01:28 [Steven]
- As soon as I hit a link, the sound quality deteriorates
- 15:01:32 [Zakim]
- +ShaneM
- 15:03:13 [Steven]
- zakim, dial steven-mobile
- 15:03:14 [Zakim]
- ok, Steven; the call is being made
- 15:03:14 [Zakim]
- +Steven
- 15:03:47 [Ralph]
- Shane: I raised issue-120 and I believe it's [easy to] close
- 15:03:59 [Ralph]
- scribenick: Ralph
- 15:04:04 [Steven]
- zakim, drop me
- 15:04:04 [Zakim]
- Steven is being disconnected
- 15:04:05 [Zakim]
- -Steven
- 15:04:08 [msporny]
- http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
- 15:04:15 [Steven]
- zakim, dial steven-mobile
- 15:04:15 [Zakim]
- ok, Steven; the call is being made
- 15:04:17 [Zakim]
- +Steven
- 15:04:27 [Ralph]
- [DONE] ACTION: Manu to e-mail final Christian Hoertnagl response. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
- 15:04:33 [Ralph]
- [DONE] ACTION: Manu to review current on hold test cases and e-mail list on what we should do with them. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
- 15:04:40 [Zakim]
- -Steven
- 15:04:42 [Ralph]
- ACTION: Michael to determine which useless-triples test cases to remove and which to add. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
- 15:04:44 [Ralph]
- -- continues
- 15:04:50 [Steven]
- zakim, dial steven-mobile
- 15:04:54 [Zakim]
- ok, Steven; the call is being made
- 15:04:56 [Zakim]
- +Steven
- 15:05:03 [Ralph]
- ACTION: Manu to reach out to Slashdot and attempt to get RDFa integrated into Slashdot. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
- 15:05:03 [Ralph]
-
- 15:05:08 [Ralph]
- -- continues
- 15:05:16 [Ralph]
- Manu: I've sent email, awaiting a response
- 15:05:16 [Zakim]
- -Steven
- 15:05:22 [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]
- 15:05:25 [Ralph]
- -- continues
- 15:05:29 [Ralph]
- Manu: it's in progress
- 15:05:40 [Ralph]
- ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
- 15:05:47 [Zakim]
- +Steven
- 15:06:06 [Ralph]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/87 issue 87
- 15:06:11 [Ralph]
- Shane: issue 87 is closed
- 15:06:11 [Zakim]
- -Steven
- 15:06:15 [Steven]
- it was working earlier today. Not ringing my end
- 15:06:17 [Ralph]
- -- done
- 15:06:33 [Steven]
- zakim, dial steven-mobile
- 15:06:33 [Zakim]
- ok, Steven; the call is being made
- 15:06:36 [Zakim]
- +Steven
- 15:06:37 [Ralph]
- ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]
- 15:06:39 [Ralph]
- -- continues
- 15:06:57 [Zakim]
- -Steven
- 15:07:29 [Steven]
- zakim, dial steven-mobile
- 15:07:29 [Zakim]
- ok, Steven; the call is being made
- 15:07:31 [Zakim]
- +Steven
- 15:07:49 [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]
- 15:07:51 [Ralph]
- -- continues
- 15:07:59 [Ralph]
- zakim, mute steven
- 15:07:59 [Zakim]
- Steven should now be muted
- 15:08:08 [Steven]
- voice mail?
- 15:08:16 [Steven]
- ok, thanks
- 15:08:19 [Steven]
- zakim, code?
- 15:08:19 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Steven
- 15:08:25 [msporny]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0084.html
- 15:08:30 [Ralph]
- Topic: Test Case Review
- 15:09:01 [Ralph]
- -- test 4; xml:base
- 15:09:14 [Ralph]
- Manu: we don't process xml:base, so I suggest we reject test 4
- 15:09:31 [msporny]
- http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/
- 15:09:44 [Zakim]
- + +1.617.500.aaaa
- 15:09:53 [Steven]
- zakim, aaaa is me
- 15:09:53 [Zakim]
- +Steven; got it
- 15:10:45 [Ralph]
- PROPOSE to reject test #4
- 15:10:56 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:10:59 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED to reject test #4 xml:base
- 15:11:14 [Ralph]
- -- test 17; Related blanknodes
- 15:11:38 [Ralph]
- Manu: I suggest we rewrite test 17 to cover explicit bnode relationships
- 15:11:39 [Zakim]
- -Steven
- 15:11:55 [msporny]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0096.html
- 15:11:57 [Steven]
- I'm here
- 15:11:59 [Steven]
- muted
- 15:13:11 [Ralph]
- Manu: note that the SPARQL intentionally uses different bnode names just to insure that the implementation didn't hardcode the names
- 15:13:49 [msporny]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0096.html
- 15:14:22 [Ralph]
- PROPOSE to replace test 17 with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0096.html
- 15:14:44 [Ralph]
- Shane: this is the case that Mark's action refers to
- 15:15:16 [Ralph]
- ... to take some non-normative text about bnodes and CURIEs and make it normative
- 15:15:36 [Ralph]
- ... I just talked with Mark and am preparing to fix the spec now
- 15:16:12 [ShaneM]
- I think the new test case is fine.
- 15:16:57 [Ralph]
- +1 to proposal
- 15:17:02 [Steven]
- +1
- 15:17:06 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED to replace test 17 with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0096.html
- 15:17:46 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED test 17 approved per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0096.html
- 15:18:00 [Ralph]
- -- test 28
- 15:18:31 [Ralph]
- PROPOSE to reject test 28 @xml:lang and @datatype
- 15:18:32 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:18:50 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED to reject test 28 @xml:lang and @datatype
- 15:19:09 [Ralph]
- Manu: 107 and 108 replace 28
- 15:19:16 [Ralph]
- -- test 39
- 15:19:29 [Ralph]
- -- test 39 @rev - @src/@href test
- 15:19:46 [Ralph]
- Manu: this passes Ivan's parser and my parser
- 15:20:09 [Ralph]
- ... this test checks that implmentations don't use @href to override @src
- 15:20:51 [ShaneM]
- looks good.
- 15:20:54 [Steven]
- is there a similar test for @resource?
- 15:21:03 [ShaneM]
- yes its next
- 15:21:07 [Ralph]
- Ralph: looks good to me
- 15:21:11 [Steven]
- good
- 15:21:12 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: test 39 approved
- 15:21:34 [Ralph]
- -- test 40; @rev - @src/@resource test
- 15:21:37 [ShaneM]
- that one seems fine too.
- 15:21:51 [Ralph]
- Manu: 40 similar to 39, checking that @resource doesn't override @src
- 15:22:45 [Ralph]
- Manu: I'm not sure this one is correct
- 15:22:59 [Ralph]
- ... if we're checking that @resource doesn't override @src then we shouldn't use @about
- 15:23:15 [Ralph]
- ... if we remove @about then the SPARQL uses the @src value
- 15:23:55 [msporny]
- <img src="http://sw-app.org/img/mic_2007_01.jpg"
- 15:23:55 [msporny]
- rev="foaf:depicts"
- 15:23:55 [msporny]
- resource="http://sw-app.org/img/mic_2006_03.jpg"
- 15:23:56 [msporny]
- alt="A photo depicting Michael" />
- 15:24:17 [msporny]
- ASK WHERE {
- 15:24:17 [msporny]
- <http://sw-app.org/img/mic_2006_03.jpg> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/depicts> <http://sw-app.org/img/mic_2007_01.jpg> .
- 15:24:51 [Ralph]
- Ralph: I believe this is a more useful test but the semantics are wrong (for foaf:depicts) now
- 15:24:56 [Ralph]
- Manu: foaf:alternate?
- 15:25:11 [Steven]
- Can't you use depicts for a photo within a photo?
- 15:25:44 [Ralph]
- ... ??:alternate ?
- 15:25:57 [Steven]
- htmlk:alternate
- 15:26:00 [Steven]
- s/k/
- 15:26:19 [Ralph]
- Shane: the definition of html:alternate isn't quite right for this
- 15:26:31 [Ralph]
- Manu: html:next works
- 15:27:07 [msporny]
- }
- 15:27:08 [msporny]
- <img src="http://sw-app.org/img/mic_2007_01.jpg"
- 15:27:08 [msporny]
- rev="previous"
- 15:27:08 [msporny]
- resource="http://sw-app.org/img/mic_2006_03.jpg"
- 15:27:08 [msporny]
- alt="A photo depicting Michael" />
- 15:27:08 [ShaneM]
- I think we should change the definition of "alternate" in our vocabulary for what its worth. This is dumb - "alternate designates alternate versions for the document."
- 15:27:14 [msporny]
- ASK WHERE {
- 15:27:14 [msporny]
- <http://sw-app.org/img/mic_2006_03.jpg> <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#previous> <http://sw-app.org/img/mic_2007_01.jpg> .
- 15:27:16 [msporny]
- }
- 15:27:38 [Steven]
- http://farm1.static.flickr.com/15/22341209_48084a909b.jpg?v=0
- 15:28:42 [Ralph]
- Ralph: foaf:thumbnail ?
- 15:29:01 [Ralph]
- Manu: these two particular images are different; one isn't a thumbnail of the other
- 15:29:10 [Ralph]
- Shane: html:alternate is fine, as is html:next
- 15:29:10 [msporny]
- <img src="http://sw-app.org/img/mic_2007_01.jpg"
- 15:29:11 [msporny]
- rev="alternate"
- 15:29:11 [msporny]
- resource="http://sw-app.org/img/mic_2006_03.jpg"
- 15:29:11 [msporny]
- alt="A photo depicting Michael" />
- 15:29:20 [msporny]
- ASK WHERE {
- 15:29:20 [msporny]
- <http://sw-app.org/img/mic_2006_03.jpg> <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#alternate> <http://sw-app.org/img/mic_2007_01.jpg> .
- 15:29:20 [msporny]
- }
- 15:29:31 [Ralph]
- +1 to html:alternate
- 15:29:56 [Steven]
- http://farm1.static.flickr.com/15/22341209_48084a909b.jpg foaf:depicts http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/06-steven-goteborg/guido.jpg
- 15:30:39 [Ralph]
- PROPOSE: change test 40 to drop @about and use html:alternate
- 15:30:42 [Steven]
- +1
- 15:30:57 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: test 40 approved after changes to drop @about and use html:alternate
- 15:31:24 [Ralph]
- -- test 42; omitted @about
- 15:31:45 [Ralph]
- Manu: the SPARQL in the test harness is still wrong
- 15:31:50 [Ralph]
- ... no triples should be generated
- 15:32:16 [Ralph]
- ... this should be turned into a negative test
- 15:32:23 [Ralph]
- ... testing that @src is not a target
- 15:32:42 [Ralph]
- ... this was a change to our processing rules
- 15:33:19 [Ralph]
- Ralph: I agree; no triples should be generated
- 15:34:05 [Ralph]
- PROPOSED: test 42 approved after changing to a negative test and removing triples from the SPARQL
- 15:34:18 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: test 42 approved after changing to a negative test and removing triples from the SPARQL
- 15:34:49 [Ralph]
- -- test 43; @src/@href test with omitted @about
- 15:35:27 [msporny]
- Test #43: REJECT Duplicates TC#34, TC#35, and TC#90
- 15:35:32 [msporny]
- Test #44: REJECT Duplicates TC#32, TC#37, and TC#40
- 15:35:37 [msporny]
- Test #45: REJECT Duplicates TC#32, TC#36, TC#37
- 15:35:42 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:35:44 [Ralph]
- Manu: 43, 44, and 45 are obsoleted by 34, 35, 90; 32, 37, 40; 32, 36, 37
- 15:35:55 [Ralph]
- Ralph: I trust you
- 15:36:34 [Steven]
- =1
- 15:36:34 [Steven]
- +1
- 15:36:34 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: tests 43, 44, and 45 dropped
- 15:36:54 [ShaneM]
- updated vocab document is at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/xhtml-vocab-20080515.html - Ralph, can you please install it in /1999/xhtml/vocab as appropriate?
- 15:36:59 [msporny]
- http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/
- 15:37:29 [Ralph]
- Topic: Unreviewed Tests
- 15:37:46 [Ralph]
- -- test 95; No triples with two nested @rel
- 15:37:58 [Ralph]
- Manu: I think tests 95, 96, and 97 should be rejected
- 15:38:09 [Ralph]
- ... we changed the processing rules to retain "useless" triples
- 15:38:17 [Ralph]
- ... so these tests are obsolete
- 15:38:25 [Ralph]
- PROPOSE: reject tests 95, 96, 97
- 15:38:46 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:38:47 [Steven]
- +1
- 15:38:50 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: reject tests 95, 96, 97
- 15:39:07 [Ralph]
- -- test 104; rdf:value
- 15:39:29 [Ralph]
- Manu: the objective of 104 is to have an example of a value with a unit
- 15:40:29 [Ralph]
- Ralph: this doesn't really test anything new about RDFa; it's more demonstrating a use case
- 15:40:46 [Ralph]
- Manu: whomever raised this was concerned specifically about rdf:value
- 15:40:52 [Ralph]
- Ralph: I don't mind duplicate tests
- 15:41:54 [Steven]
- where is 104?
- 15:42:12 [Steven]
- Oh found it
- 15:42:33 [Ralph]
- +1
- 15:42:38 [Steven]
- +1
- 15:42:40 [ShaneM]
- Harmless - +1
- 15:42:50 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: test 104 approved
- 15:43:01 [Ralph]
- -- test 105; inner @rel neither CURIE nor LinkType
- 15:43:59 [Ralph]
- Manu: the point in test 105 is that the inner @rel doesn't chain because "myfoobarrel" isn't a valid CURIE
- 15:44:11 [Ralph]
- Shane: mmmmm
- 15:44:36 [Ralph]
- ... there was a private discussion about issue 120 that resolved this
- 15:44:55 [Ralph]
- ... Mark has changed the editor's draft
- 15:45:13 [Ralph]
- ... I'm not sure if the current interpretation matches 105
- 15:45:35 [Ralph]
- Ralph: propose to passover 105
- 15:45:39 [Ralph]
- Shane: passover 106 too
- 15:45:57 [Ralph]
- -- test 107; plain literal with datatype=""
- 15:46:12 [Ralph]
- Manu: 107 is to replace test a test we rejected
- 15:46:27 [Ralph]
- ... test 28 (rejected)
- 15:47:44 [Ralph]
- ... test 107 tests that whitespace is preserved
- 15:48:00 [Ralph]
- ... both Ivan's parser and mine pass 107
- 15:48:36 [Ralph]
- Ralph: looks good to me
- 15:50:29 [Ralph]
- Ralph: do we believe all the N3 and RDF/XML variants of these tests?
- 15:50:49 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:50:56 [Ralph]
- Manu: all the N3 comes from Ivan's parser, so if Ivan's parser passes the test then the N3 is OK. But for now, continue to ignore the N3 and RDF/XML
- 15:51:11 [Steven]
- +1
- 15:51:12 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: test 107 approved
- 15:51:25 [Ralph]
- -- test 108; plain literal with datatype="" and xml:lang preservation
- 15:51:36 [Ralph]
- Manu: I believe there's an error in the SPARQL for test 108
- 15:52:07 [Ralph]
- ... I believe @el is missing from the end of the SPARQL
- 15:52:22 [Ralph]
- Ralph: yep, SPARQL should preserve the lang too
- 15:52:43 [Zakim]
- -Steven.a
- 15:53:30 [Ralph]
- PROPOSE: accept test 108 correcting the SPARQL to specify the language
- 15:53:32 [ShaneM]
- +1 with changing sparql to include @el
- 15:53:54 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: accept test 108 correcting the SPARQL to specify the language
- 15:54:43 [Ralph]
- -- test 109; xml:base should be ignored
- 15:54:58 [Ralph]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0112.html "Test Case #109: xml:base should be ignored in XHTML+RDFa 1.0" [Manu 2008-05-13]
- 15:55:07 [Zakim]
- + +003162467aabb
- 15:55:15 [Ralph]
- Shane: Michael's question was "should invalid markup generate any triples?"
- 15:55:21 [msporny]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0115.html
- 15:55:21 [Ralph]
- ... the answer should be 'no'
- 15:55:31 [Ralph]
- Manu: we don't have a way to test invalid markup
- 15:55:45 [Ralph]
- Shane: parsers are likely to generate triples when they don't validate the input
- 15:55:46 [msporny]
- ?
- 15:55:51 [Ralph]
- ... I think it's fine to include the test
- 15:56:11 [msporny]
- msporny has joined #rdfa
- 15:56:26 [Ralph]
- Shane: looking at the specifics;
- 15:56:42 [Ralph]
- ... @xml:base on the root and on the div
- 15:57:13 [Ralph]
- Manu: we're trying to test that @xml:base is ignored and the @about value is the subject
- 15:57:19 [Steven]
- Steven has joined #rdfa
- 15:57:36 [Ralph]
- Shane: we're insuring parsers ignore @xml:base
- 15:57:45 [Steven]
- sorry network break. Which test is this?
- 15:58:12 [Ralph]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0112.html
- 15:58:19 [Ralph]
- proposed test 109
- 15:58:40 [Ralph]
- Shane: we have another test for @base
- 15:59:11 [msporny]
- [ TEST ] Test #72 (approved): Relative URI in @about (with XHTML base in head) [ show details | hide details ]
- 15:59:11 [msporny]
- [ TEST ] Test #73 (approved): Relative URI in @resource (with XHTML base in head) [ show details | hide details ]
- 15:59:12 [msporny]
- [ TEST ] Test #74 (approved): Relative URI in @href (with XHTML base in head) [ show details | hide details ]
- 15:59:28 [Ralph]
- Ralph: I fall on the side of the concern that Michael is expressing
- 15:59:38 [Ralph]
- ... we don't specify behavior for invalid input
- 15:59:41 [Steven]
- where do I find it?
- 15:59:53 [Ralph]
- Steven, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0112.html
- 16:00:05 [Steven]
- thanks
- 16:00:21 [Ralph]
- Manu: this question has been raised on the list several times
- 16:00:31 [Ralph]
- s/has/about @xml:base has/
- 16:00:43 [Ralph]
- ... realistically, a lot of parsers will deal with invalid XHTML
- 16:01:24 [Ralph]
- Ralph: how about we add a big XML comment saying this isn't valid XHTML
- 16:01:45 [Ralph]
- Shane: I'm not offended by the current form, a comment is fine
- 16:03:13 [Ralph]
- PROPOSE: to accept test 109 with an added XML comment noting this is not valid XHTML
- 16:03:28 [Ralph]
- Ralph: +1
- 16:03:38 [Steven]
- +1
- 16:03:41 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 16:03:47 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: to accept test 109 with an added XML comment noting this is not valid XHTML
- 16:03:52 [ShaneM]
- PROPOSE: Add a comment to rdfa-syntax that conforming parsers are NOT required to generate triples from invalid input.
- 16:04:10 [Ralph]
- Ralph: absolutely +1
- 16:04:18 [Steven]
- +1
- 16:05:15 [msporny]
- +1
- 16:05:25 [Ralph]
- Shane: this tacitly encourages document authors to make valid documents
- 16:05:37 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: Add a comment to rdfa-syntax that conforming parsers are NOT required to generate triples from invalid input.
- 16:06:05 [Ralph]
- Shane: I'm about to make an updated editor's draft
- 16:06:07 [Steven]
- Regrets for next week
- 16:06:08 [Zakim]
- -ShaneM
- 16:06:09 [Ralph]
- [adjourned]
- 16:06:12 [Steven]
- I am chairing a conference
- 16:06:14 [Ralph]
- Ralph: regrets for next week too
- 16:06:18 [Zakim]
- - +003162467aabb
- 16:06:41 [Zakim]
- -Ralph
- 16:06:42 [Zakim]
- -msporny
- 16:06:52 [Zakim]
- SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
- 16:06:56 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Ralph, msporny, ShaneM, Steven, +1.617.500.aaaa, +003162467aabb
- 16:10:25 [Ralph]
- http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab is now updated
- 16:11:04 [Ralph]
- Shane, any objection to adding $id$ or $revision$ to the vocab namespace document?
- 16:11:23 [Ralph]
- (a visible version identifier)
- 16:12:17 [Ralph]
- zakim, bye
- 16:12:17 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #rdfa