IRC log of rdfa on 2009-02-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:52:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
15:52:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-rdfa-irc
15:52:56 [Ralph]
Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML Task Force
15:53:10 [Ralph]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Feb/0178.html
15:53:44 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-rdfa-minutes.html previous non-meeting
15:53:56 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-01-22
15:54:01 [Ralph]
s/2008/2009
15:54:17 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please make record public
15:54:22 [Ralph]
zakim, this will be rdfa
15:54:22 [Zakim]
ok, Ralph; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
15:55:18 [msporny]
msporny has joined #rdfa
15:59:23 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
15:59:31 [Zakim]
+??P31
15:59:37 [msporny]
Zakim, I am ??P31
15:59:37 [Zakim]
+msporny; got it
15:59:45 [msporny]
Morning, Ralph :)
16:00:24 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has joined #rdfa
16:01:33 [msporny]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
16:02:02 [msporny]
rrsagent, make log public
16:02:29 [msporny]
yipes...
16:02:34 [Zakim]
+??P49
16:02:46 [ShaneM]
zakim, ??P49 is ShaneM
16:02:46 [Zakim]
+ShaneM; got it
16:02:55 [msporny]
Scribe: Manu_Sporny
16:03:05 [msporny]
ScribeNick: msporny
16:03:16 [msporny]
Meeting: RDF in XHTML Task Force
16:03:28 [msporny]
Chair: Ben_Adida
16:03:39 [Zakim]
+Ralph
16:04:10 [Zakim]
+Ben_Adida
16:04:17 [benadida]
benadida has joined #rdfa
16:04:31 [Ralph]
scribenick: ralph
16:05:06 [Ralph]
scribe: Ralph
16:05:27 [Ralph]
zakim, who's on the call?
16:05:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see msporny, ShaneM, Ralph, Ben_Adida
16:07:32 [Ralph]
[DONE] ACTION: Manu to create design tests for @prefix and @profile. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action16]
16:07:40 [Ralph]
Topic: Action Review
16:07:42 [msporny]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Feb/0180.html
16:07:57 [Ralph]
Manu: see my mail
16:08:17 [Ralph]
... I showed a first pass of three styles of markup
16:08:38 [TomB]
TomB has joined #rdfa
16:09:09 [Ralph]
[DROPPED] ACTION: Ben to add public-rdfa examples to wiki and think of slightly improved top-level organization [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
16:09:25 [Ralph]
Ben: I did a reorganization of the wiki then Manu added way more than this action require
16:09:27 [Ralph]
d
16:09:36 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Ben to put up information on "how to write RDFa" with screencast possibly and instructions on bookmarklet. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
16:10:04 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Ralph or Steven fix the .htaccess for the XHTML namespace [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
16:10:34 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy to demonstrate GRDDL with XHTML/RDFa once the NS URI is set up. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action03]
16:10:37 [Ralph]
Ralph: drop this?
16:10:48 [Ralph]
Ben: I'd like to ping Jeremy; I'd like to see this
16:11:01 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Manu to create TC to test @resource="[]" does not set object based on TC 123. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
16:11:11 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Manu to look at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Dec/0037.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
16:11:29 [Ralph]
Manu: I sent an email, no response yet
16:11:36 [Zakim]
+??P4
16:11:44 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases for Ivan. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
16:11:47 [TomB]
zakim, ??p4 is TomB
16:11:47 [Zakim]
+TomB; got it
16:12:02 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
16:12:06 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Mark to review reasoning on setting explicit about="" on HEAD and BODY [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/18-rdfa-irc]
16:12:14 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Mark to send Ben ubiquity related wizard stuff [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
16:12:18 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
16:12:36 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
16:12:40 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
16:13:19 [Ralph]
Topic: @prefix, specifically @prefix on HEAD
16:13:28 [Ralph]
Ben: I'd like to talk about this in concert with the test cases
16:14:00 [Ralph]
[[
16:14:01 [Ralph]
I see from the discussion on January 22 that there was talk of allowing
16:14:01 [Ralph]
@prefix on HEAD to apply to the BODY, but I think we had clearly said in
16:14:01 [Ralph]
prior discussions that this shouldn't happen, because of the SAX-based
16:14:01 [Ralph]
processing of documents. We need to clarify this.
16:14:02 [Ralph]
]]
16:14:12 [Ralph]
-- Ben, in -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Feb/0178.html email
16:14:28 [Ralph]
Ben: am I correct in my interpretation of that 22-Jan discussion?
16:14:37 [Ralph]
... @prefix on HEAD would apply to BODY also?
16:14:42 [Ralph]
Manu: yes, that was the discussion
16:14:45 [markbirbeck]
markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
16:14:48 [Ralph]
... we didn't get too deeply into this
16:14:59 [Ralph]
... Mark did propose this would be nice
16:14:59 [markbirbeck]
zakim, code?
16:14:59 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
16:15:02 [Ralph]
regrets+ Steven
16:15:24 [msporny]
http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/
16:15:31 [Ralph]
Manu: there are 3 variations on @prefix syntax
16:15:42 [Zakim]
+??P5
16:15:46 [Ralph]
... select 'Design Test Suite' and 'Unreviewed'
16:15:51 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am ?p5
16:15:51 [Zakim]
sorry, markbirbeck, I do not see a party named '?p5'
16:16:06 [TomB]
just listening (muted)
16:16:15 [markbirbeck]
zakim, ??p5
16:16:15 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??p5', markbirbeck
16:16:29 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am ?
16:16:29 [Zakim]
+markbirbeck; got it
16:16:52 [TomB]
:-)
16:17:16 [ShaneM]
"We will serve no predicate before its time"
16:17:41 [Ralph]
-- test 9001
16:17:41 [msporny]
http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/
16:17:56 [Ralph]
-- test 9001: Establishing @prefix on HTML element
16:18:24 [Ralph]
Manu: the purpose of these tests is just to provide a starting point for the design discussion
16:18:34 [msporny]
http://rdfa.info/wiki/design-suite
16:18:55 [Ralph]
-> http://rdfa.info/wiki/Design-suite#9001 explanation of purpose of test 9001
16:19:39 [Ralph]
Manu: 9002 shows a CSS-like syntax, 9003 shows an '=' syntax
16:19:49 [Ralph]
... I prefer the '=' syntax, as does Toby Inkster
16:20:15 [Ralph]
Ben: three decisions; what to call this @ttribute, what's the value syntax, what's the parsing model
16:20:44 [Ralph]
Mark: sounds right. the name is the least important
16:20:59 [Ralph]
Ben: the 3 test assume @prefix for the name and the same parsing model as @xmlns
16:21:07 [Ralph]
... they're testing for the value syntax options
16:21:11 [Ralph]
Manu: correct
16:21:49 [Ralph]
Ben: note that none of this discussion is really in scope for this Task Force
16:22:11 [Ralph]
... we're producing some notes on how to proceed
16:22:25 [markbirbeck]
q+
16:22:32 [ShaneM]
q+
16:22:37 [Ralph]
... should we make a decision, or should we just note these options and leave it to whatever group is chartered to decide?
16:22:51 [Ralph]
Mark: if we resolve something, we're not sure the status of that resolution
16:23:02 [Ralph]
... people who do implement these sorts of things tend to implement quickly
16:23:10 [Ralph]
... Manu's already done something, as has Ivan
16:23:19 [Ralph]
... if we agree amongst ourselves this is a big step
16:23:29 [Ralph]
... could be a Note for a year or so
16:23:38 [Ralph]
... this would at least put it 'there'
16:23:54 [Ralph]
... already some useful discussions around named graphs
16:24:14 [Ralph]
... it would be good to converge on a way of approaching these even if we don't have a place to put the formal state of this convergence
16:24:29 [msporny]
+1 for going as far as we can with the syntax for @prefix
16:24:36 [Ralph]
Ben: so we might proceed on the understanding that whatever we 'decide' can be overturned later
16:24:52 [Ralph]
Shane: we're likely to be participants in whatever discussion is chartered
16:25:10 [Ralph]
... the XHTML2 WG can proceed now if it chooses
16:25:25 [Ralph]
... addition of @profile to the XHTML module would be covered by our current WG charter
16:27:17 [markbirbeck]
q+
16:27:27 [benadida]
ack shanem
16:27:58 [ShaneM]
q+ to discuss xmlns: and XML parsing rules
16:29:18 [Ralph]
Ralph: the SVG folk are pushing on @xmlns support in HTML as well
16:29:28 [Ralph]
... SVG Tiny has fully incorporated RDFa
16:29:40 [Ralph]
... and SVG itself uses @xmlns
16:29:58 [msporny]
When Doug and I were talking at WDN09 - I found a wierd issue with him using xlink:href to specify hrefs in his SVG - it would break a RDFa parser as he marked it up.
16:30:01 [Ralph]
... so are we diluting our message if we add a syntactic alternative?
16:30:14 [Ralph]
Mark: it doesn't hurt to have both @xmlns and @prefix in the same document
16:30:33 [Ralph]
... we consciously left open this scope in the CURIE spec
16:30:56 [Ralph]
... the wording says that XML documents should support @xmlns
16:31:05 [Ralph]
... but leaves open the possibility of alternatives
16:31:36 [Ralph]
Shane: CURIE is Candidate Rec
16:31:58 [Ralph]
... it is correct that alternative mechanisms are permitted by the CURIE spec
16:32:14 [Ralph]
... the CURIE spec itself does not define any attributes
16:32:23 [Ralph]
... the XHTML2 spec defines the mapping mechanism
16:32:42 [Zakim]
ShaneM, you wanted to discuss xmlns: and XML parsing rules
16:33:16 [Ralph]
Shane: there's been a good argument in the recent days about why @xmlns: is not isomorphic w.r.t. processing model between HTML5 and XML
16:33:42 [Ralph]
... if we say that the attribute name "xmlns:foo" should be treated as a token,
16:33:59 [Ralph]
... the truth is that in the XML DOM a real parser should not be passing this token through
16:34:16 [Ralph]
... the actual name of the attribute is 'foo' in the XML namespace, not a string 'xmlns:foo'
16:34:33 [Ralph]
... @xml... is a reserved namespace
16:34:47 [Ralph]
Mark: doesn't the API allow the application to retrieve the full name of the attribute?
16:35:16 [Ralph]
Manu: I thought Henri was specifically referring to XOM
16:35:39 [Ralph]
... the level 1 API would be fine but the level 2 API would filter xmlns:foo to something else
16:36:19 [Ralph]
Mark: but the argument was that an HTML5 processor _would_ give access to the full xmlns:foo whereas an XML pipeline would not
16:36:32 [Ralph]
... so why would an application that wants the full string use such an XML pipeline?
16:36:52 [Ralph]
Manu: the point was that the cost is not zero as we've claimed
16:37:33 [msporny]
+1 for prefix instead of xmlns:
16:37:34 [markbirbeck]
+10
16:37:37 [Ralph]
Ben: independent of Henri's argument, do we feel that adding @prefix would be prefereable
16:38:14 [Ralph]
Ralph: are you just talking about a synonym for @xmlns for CURIE prefixes?
16:38:38 [Ralph]
... or the added features of the value that are under discussion?
16:38:53 [Ralph]
Mark: if we hadn't chosen @xmlns we'd be in deeper trouble
16:39:23 [Ralph]
Ben: there's an argument that @xmlns is working better than expected; we _can_ actually get to it in the browsers
16:39:28 [msporny]
me agrees - we needed to use xmlns: for XHTML, but we should provide @prefix as an alternative.
16:39:39 [Ralph]
... there's another argument that even if it is working it comes at a cost and we should move to @prefix anyway
16:40:03 [Ralph]
Ralph: but what _are_ the costs? I see huge costs in destabilizing a sapec
16:40:07 [Ralph]
s/sapec/spec
16:40:21 [Ralph]
Mark: we're also talking about changing the processing model a bit
16:40:36 [Ralph]
... currently we don't provide a way to import a bunch of mappings
16:41:22 [Ralph]
... my main argument in favor of a new attribute is to add a feature to come closer to [the simplicity of] microformat
16:41:47 [Ralph]
Ben: I was trying to separate the two issues; new features vs. name
16:41:55 [Ralph]
Ralph: I don't think you can separate these questions now
16:42:13 [Ralph]
Mark: namespaces have never really been resolved in terms of attribute contents
16:42:35 [Ralph]
... so with a new attribute we could avoid some of the mistakes of namespaces
16:43:04 [Ralph]
Ben: so if @prefix works exactly like @xmlns, are you leaning to preferring it?
16:43:07 [Ralph]
Manu, Shane: yes
16:43:34 [Ralph]
Manu: we're not talking about removing @xmlns; that would destabilize it
16:43:44 [Ralph]
... just adding @prefix as an alternative
16:44:07 [Ralph]
Mark: the RDFa spec says that if @xmlns: is present, it should be processed
16:44:18 [ShaneM]
q+ to discuss extending list of reserved @rel values
16:44:27 [Ralph]
... we'd still process both @xmlns and @prefix
16:44:48 [Ralph]
... in the CURIE spec I'm pretty sure we require that XML processors support @xmlns
16:44:59 [ShaneM]
CURIE spec says "When CURIES are used in an XML-based host language, and that host language supports XML Namespaces, prefix values MUST be able to be defined using the 'xmlns:' syntax specified in [XMLNAMES]. Such host languages MAY also provide additional prefix mapping definition mechanisms."
16:45:15 [Ralph]
Ben: in terms of the spec, we don't talk about HTML documents currently so I think we're safe adding @prefix
16:45:23 [Ralph]
... we do have to talk about the precedence of @xmlns and @prefix
16:45:46 [Ralph]
... if we specified that @xmlns has precedence then we'd have a level of backward compatiblity for old XHTML parsers
16:46:49 [Ralph]
Mark: sort-of; new parsers would generate more triples but the triples generated by an old parser would match that same subset generated by a new parser
16:49:20 [Ralph]
Ben: a note from this TF suggesting that @prefix is a way forward would carry some weight
16:49:44 [Ralph]
Mark: we could argue that @prefix is a token substitution before the RDFa processing is invoked
16:49:55 [ShaneM]
XHTML 1.2 could introduce @prefix
16:50:06 [Ralph]
Ben: but that would mean that the RDFa Recommendation no longer is sufficient to implement an RDFa processor
16:50:17 [msporny]
who's working on XHTML 1.2, Shane?
16:50:38 [Ralph]
Mark: if @prefix is not introduced by some group with some authority then the HTML WG [might not give it any attention]
16:50:56 [Ralph]
... the XHTML2 WG could give this a home and then in the future we harmonize the two
16:51:09 [Ralph]
Ben: test cases using @prefix would have to live somewhere
16:51:15 [Ralph]
Mark: could be on a Wiki
16:52:02 [Ralph]
... a Last Call comment on CURIE would allow the XHTML2 WG to be on the record
16:52:13 [Ralph]
... as supporting it for some future version
16:52:37 [Ralph]
Ben: do we want to say that RDFa parsers should start supporting @prefix soon?
16:52:52 [Ralph]
... if we want @prefix to be supported in both HTML and XHTML
16:53:05 [Ralph]
... so we'd recommend that new markup use @prefix instead of @xmlns
16:53:31 [Ralph]
... so some document at some time in the future should say how to write such a new RDFa parser
16:54:12 [Ralph]
Mark: given our recent experience of HTML5 discussions, it's asking for trouble if we base this on trying to find some accommodation
16:54:25 [Ralph]
... whereas if we say we really believe this [independently], we have a stronger argument
16:55:17 [Ralph]
Ben: sounds like we'd want to update the RDFa specification to add @prefix to it
16:55:20 [ShaneM]
I think that we could successfully do this as a "PER" second edition of RDFa Syntax 1.0
16:55:25 [Ralph]
... @xmlns would still be supported
16:59:00 [Ralph]
Ralph: it would be harmful for this group to push for XML documents that do not conform to the W3C Recommendation
16:59:20 [Ralph]
... so I am opposed to adding @prefix without updating the Recommendation
16:59:48 [Ralph]
... the cost of updating the Recommendation could be justified if the update included new features as well
17:00:33 [Ralph]
... a possible new feature is the value syntax for @prefix
17:01:41 [Ralph]
Shane: the XHTML2 WG could update the RDFa Recommendation
17:01:45 [Ralph]
Ralph: yes, that's plausible
17:02:46 [Ralph]
Ben: so wiki pages, test cases, etc. should have large disclaimers right now saying @prefix is experimental
17:03:49 [Ralph]
... path forward could be to keep this discussion in the wiki as experimental, talk with implementors, work out details in the experimental wiki page
17:03:53 [Ralph]
Manu: yes
17:04:59 [Ralph]
Mark: I'm a bit uneasy as there are documents being circulated that look like specifications when they should really be blogs
17:05:27 [Ralph]
... and the wiki might start to look like a specification too
17:05:40 [Ralph]
... the wiki shouldn't imply that we all agree on the content
17:05:59 [Ralph]
Manu: you want more than the "experimental" note on the wiki pages?
17:06:13 [Zakim]
-ShaneM
17:06:14 [Ralph]
... "the existence of this page does not imply ..."
17:06:34 [Ralph]
Mark: might be worth having a higher-level page that links to these
17:07:22 [Ralph]
[adjourned]
17:07:28 [Zakim]
-msporny
17:07:29 [Zakim]
-markbirbeck
17:07:31 [Zakim]
-Ben_Adida
17:07:32 [Zakim]
-TomB
17:07:33 [Zakim]
-Ralph
17:07:35 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
17:07:35 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:07:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
17:07:36 [Zakim]
Attendees were msporny, ShaneM, Ralph, Ben_Adida, TomB, markbirbeck
17:07:48 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:07:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
17:07:54 [Ralph]
zakim, bye
17:07:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfa
17:10:20 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:10:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
17:14:08 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
17:14:08 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items