IRC log of rdfa on 2009-07-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:53:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:53:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-irc
14:53:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:53:24 [msporny]
zakim, this will be rdfa
14:53:27 [Zakim]
ok, msporny; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:53:41 [msporny]
Meeting: RDFa in XHTML Task Force
14:53:49 [msporny]
Chair: Manu_Sporny
14:54:00 [msporny]
rrsagent, make log public
14:54:08 [msporny]
Present: Manu_Sporny
14:54:21 [msporny]
Regrets: Ben_Adida, Michael_Hausenblas
14:54:45 [msporny]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0032.html
14:54:58 [msporny]
Previous: http://www.w3.org/2009/06/25-rdfa-minutes.html
14:55:50 [msporny]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:55:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
15:03:25 [msporny]
Present+ Steven_Pemberton
15:04:01 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
15:04:08 [Zakim]
+ShaneM
15:04:16 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
15:04:16 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:04:17 [Zakim]
+Steven
15:04:27 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:04:32 [Zakim]
+??P7
15:04:33 [markbirbeck]
markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
15:04:41 [msporny]
zakim, I am ??P7
15:04:50 [Zakim]
+msporny; got it
15:07:00 [msporny]
Present+ Shane_McCarron
15:08:01 [msporny]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:08:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ShaneM, Steven, msporny
15:08:53 [msporny]
ACTION: Ben to author wiki page with charter template for RDFa IG. Manu to provide support where needed. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
15:08:55 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
15:09:02 [msporny]
ACTION: Ben to prepare "how to write RDFa" screencast with fragment parser [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]
15:09:04 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
15:09:11 [msporny]
ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
15:09:13 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
15:09:23 [msporny]
ACTION: Mark to send Ben ubiquity related wizard stuff [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
15:09:31 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
15:09:45 [msporny]
ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
15:09:47 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
15:09:58 [msporny]
ACTION: Ralph find the statement on test suite copyright [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
15:10:00 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
15:10:13 [msporny]
ACTION: Ralph make a request for an RDFa issue tracker instance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
15:10:15 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
15:10:31 [markbirbeck]
zakim, code?
15:10:31 [msporny]
ACTION: Ralph or Steven fix the .htaccess for the XHTML namespace [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01].org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
15:10:32 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
15:10:33 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
15:10:58 [msporny]
ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
15:11:02 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
15:11:15 [Zakim]
+ +0208761aaaa
15:11:21 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am aaaa
15:11:21 [Zakim]
+markbirbeck; got it
15:12:20 [msporny]
Manu: Any changes to agenda?
15:12:51 [Steven]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0032
15:12:53 [msporny]
markbirbeck: I'm concerned about safe CURIEs in @rel
15:13:22 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Could we move #4 up to the first item?
15:13:48 [msporny]
markbirbeck: It might help to address major objections - it's been hanging on for some time.
15:14:02 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Simple solution is to do safe CURIEs in @rel.
15:14:53 [msporny]
Manu: Moving agenda item 4 up to 1
15:15:06 [msporny]
Topic: Use of regular CURIEs in @rel
15:15:22 [msporny]
ShaneM: I don't think we can do safe CURIEs in @rel
15:15:30 [msporny]
markbirbeck: I think this is a broader problem
15:15:46 [msporny]
markbirbeck: I think the whole issue is @rel="URL" is happening in Atom and other standards.
15:16:01 [msporny]
markbirbeck: We should recognize that this is a broader thing that people take issue with.
15:16:14 [msporny]
markbirbeck: We should come up with a major clarification, or we should try to come up with a solution.
15:16:22 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Just trying to set the context for this discussion.
15:16:27 [msporny]
ShaneM: I agree that that is the context.
15:16:41 [msporny]
ShaneM: I think it's good that people are using 'relations' with URIs.
15:16:50 [msporny]
ShaneM: I don't think that Atom has anything to do with HTML.
15:16:59 [msporny]
ShaneM: different protocol, different markup language.
15:17:13 [msporny]
ShaneM: If we were to change the syntax of @rel now, it would break every page that is using RDFa already.
15:17:22 [msporny]
ShaneM: It is an incompatible, dramatic, drastic change.
15:17:39 [msporny]
Steven: I think you're right - it was a decision we made long ago.
15:17:44 [msporny]
Steven: I don't think it's a good idea.
15:18:01 [Ralph]
Ralph has joined #rdfa
15:18:20 [msporny]
markbirbeck: The argument when we made the decision was what happens when we use legacy values.
15:18:22 [Zakim]
+Ralph
15:18:34 [msporny]
markbirbeck: It didn't occur to us at the time that it didn't preclude using safe CURIEs.
15:18:36 [Ralph]
[apologies for being late]
15:18:55 [msporny]
markbirbeck: So we could've done it, but we didn't do it. It's a shame, really.
15:19:00 [Ralph]
s/being/arriving
15:19:07 [msporny]
markbirbeck: There is another use case - the only way to get a URL into @rel is to use a CURIE.
15:19:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
15:19:21 [msporny]
markbirbeck: It's the xmlns:http hack...
15:19:30 [msporny]
markbirbeck: It's a bit of a pain for some scenarios.
15:19:47 [Ralph]
Present+ Mark_Birbeck
15:19:47 [msporny]
markbirbeck: I can see why people don't like it - it requires prefix mappings to be there.
15:20:13 [msporny]
Steven: Since you have URLs in some places and CURIEs in some places
15:20:26 [msporny]
Steven: A typical syntax for that is to use <> when you use a URI.
15:20:40 [msporny]
Steven: This wouldn't work now, ofcourse.
15:20:57 [msporny]
markbirbeck: The ideal scenario would be that every attribute could carry a CURIE, URI or token.
15:21:14 [msporny]
markbirbeck: The use of XML namespaces in RDF makes the assumption that you have this concept of a prefix... it's baggage.
15:21:15 [Steven]
well, it would be difficult in XML/HTML, since < and > have special meaning
15:21:36 [Steven]
{http://www.w3.org}
15:21:40 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Maybe we should explore Shane's point about it breaking something.
15:21:57 [msporny]
ShaneM: Look at Google's implementation = v:foo
15:21:59 [Steven]
«http://www.w3.org»
15:22:25 [msporny]
markbirbeck: One way to do it would be to signal a switch - to specify which version of RDFa you are using.
15:22:39 [Steven]
|http://www.w3.org|
15:22:42 [msporny]
ShaneM: We didn't require any sort of announcement mechanism.
15:22:55 [msporny]
ShaneM: @profile and @version come to mind.
15:23:13 [msporny]
markbirbeck: There is nothing to stop defining RDFa in X as different in RDFa in Y.
15:23:24 [msporny]
Steven: It would be nice if we had a unified syntax.
15:23:38 [msporny]
Steven: Can't we find a good way of marking a URI when a CURIE is expected?
15:24:02 [msporny]
Ralph: If there are reasons for RDFa to be different because of host language matters, that's one thing.
15:24:35 [msporny]
Ralph: I don't have to want to know that there are different versions of RDFa.
15:24:44 [msporny]
markbirbeck: The google example will have a defined namespace.
15:24:57 [msporny]
markbirbeck: That namespace will be defined.
15:25:06 [msporny]
Steven: Every CURIE or token begins with a letter.
15:25:13 [msporny]
Steven: We just have to choose a non-letter.
15:25:17 [msporny]
ShaneM: I disagree.
15:25:36 [msporny]
ShaneM: It's as simple as saying that if a namespace is not defined, then it is a URI.
15:25:42 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Yes.
15:25:57 [msporny]
markbirbeck: We probably discussed this ages ago - but not that it is so pressing, we should revisit this.
15:26:15 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Do we get any false positives?
15:26:35 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Do you falsely get a URL when somebody forgot to add the namespace? Yes... but tough.
15:26:42 [msporny]
markbirbeck: We should also allow square brackets.
15:28:01 [msporny]
ShaneM: What happens when somebody re-defines "urn:"?
15:28:14 [msporny]
Manu: Tough - they made a concious decision to do so.
15:28:18 [msporny]
markbirbeck: I agree.
15:28:30 [msporny]
markbirbeck: @rel="URL" is a handy thing.
15:28:43 [msporny]
markbirbeck: It addresses the cut/paste problem.
15:28:56 [msporny]
markbirbeck: If you're generating a snippet, you might as well just use URLs.
15:29:26 [msporny]
markbirbeck: I think what happened with square brackets was that we didn't like rel="[next]" and people didn't like that.
15:29:47 [msporny]
markbirbeck: We never went down the road of only use rel="[prefix:suffix]"
15:30:17 [msporny]
markbirbeck: "if the prefix is undefined, it's a URI" would work everywhere.
15:30:32 [msporny]
ShaneM: The TAG has made it very clear that the issue with CURIEs is that they look like URIs.
15:31:03 [msporny]
ShaneM: Now we're going down a road that may upset the TAG - all of a sudden it's difficult to differentiate between CURIEs and URIs.
15:31:20 [msporny]
Steven: We had no choice - we didn't invent this.
15:31:32 [msporny]
Steven: we extended an existing notation.
15:31:42 [msporny]
Steven: It looks just like QNames.
15:31:52 [msporny]
ShaneM: They TAG has a dislike for QNames in attributes.
15:32:01 [msporny]
Ralph: That's correct, that practice was not encouraged.
15:32:14 [Ralph]
(in attribute _values_ )
15:32:32 [msporny]
markbirbeck: The presence of a namespace prefix mapping makes it clear what you mean.
15:32:54 [msporny]
markbirbeck: You can diferentiate them when the statement in context.
15:33:44 [msporny]
Manu: Do we want to pass this approach by the list?
15:33:50 [msporny]
ShaneM: It doesn't even change the RDFa in XHTML spec.
15:34:25 [msporny]
markbirbeck: It's backwards compatible.
15:34:37 [msporny]
ShaneM: The RDFa in XHTML spec would have to change a bit.
15:34:56 [msporny]
markbirbeck: We may want to write an RDFa in HTML spec, that states this new rule.
15:35:51 [msporny]
Topic: Processing of xmlns:* in non-XML languages
15:36:53 [msporny]
Manu: Mark can you start by talking about the @token proposal?
15:37:09 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Yes - the @token is about bridging to the simplicity of Microformats.
15:37:30 [msporny]
markbirbeck: We may want to also help people create tokens on the fly to represent full URIs in a Microformats-style way.
15:38:11 [msporny]
markbirbeck: This @token spec would allow authors to define tokens, regardless of the host language.
15:38:30 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Instead of doing @prefix - you'd use @token.
15:38:54 [msporny]
markbirbeck: You could use 'dc' on it's own, without having to use a reference or suffix.
15:39:07 [msporny]
markbirbeck: The criticism is "How do you follow your nose?"
15:39:28 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Do you really need to make a request to find out what the tokens are? Via @profile?
15:39:52 [msporny]
markbirbeck: One answer is that for many of the standard use cases, you wouldn't have to go off to make the retrieval.
15:40:08 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Ben's criticism wonders whether the mapping should be done at another level.
15:40:27 [msporny]
markbirbeck: He's not here to make that case, so we may not be able to get much further one this.
15:40:52 [msporny]
Manu: Shane, elaborate on criticism of @token proposal?
15:40:59 [msporny]
ShaneM: Not concerned about multiple requests.
15:41:09 [msporny]
ShaneM: We make MANY connections when loading a web page
15:41:19 [msporny]
ShaneM: We also cache stuff - so it's not an issue... it's how it should work.
15:41:35 [msporny]
ShaneM: Manu and I put together a proposal that is similar to this called RDFa Profiles.
15:41:59 [msporny]
ShaneM: We started this discussion thinkinking that it is just a mental model - now we know that it's not.
15:42:23 [msporny]
ShaneM: The problem we're trying to solve is to see if there is a way for authors to extend the list of reserved words.
15:42:46 [msporny]
ShaneM: The proposal that Manu and I had was that the proposal needed an external document.
15:42:59 [msporny]
ShaneM: The external document was turned for RDF automatically.
15:43:27 [msporny]
ShaneM: My criticism of the @token proposal is that it's not clear how we get from embedded declaration to the RDF declaration. How do you follow your nose with @token?
15:43:36 [msporny]
ShaneM: I think that's Ben's concern as well.
15:44:16 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Just to understand... do you mean "What would the external document look like?"
15:44:23 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Or how to you get from @token to RDF.
15:44:34 [msporny]
markbirbeck: All I'm proposing is a small change to the CURIE spec.
15:44:43 [msporny]
ShaneM: Yes, I get that.
15:45:05 [msporny]
markbirbeck: So the minor change is that we can expand prefixes for CURIEs and stop there.
15:45:20 [msporny]
markbirbeck: The external document should itself be HTML+RDFa... as long as it maps to a set of triples.
15:45:36 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Somehow we get a list of mappings from that external document.
15:45:50 [msporny]
markbirbeck: The first approach is we just have @token and that's how the mapping is created.
15:46:13 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Not saying anything about the syntax in the @token attribute.
15:46:33 [ShaneM]
q+ to discuss using xmlns:
15:46:37 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Just saying that if one of the prefixes match in a CURIE via a @token, it should be used.
15:47:04 [msporny]
ack Shane
15:47:04 [Zakim]
ShaneM, you wanted to discuss using xmlns:
15:47:36 [msporny]
ShaneM: If what we're talking about is having dynamically extensible reserved words... we should divorce the conversation from new attributes.
15:47:44 [msporny]
ShaneM: If that is a fine thing to do, then so be it.
15:48:31 [msporny]
ShaneM: We should make sure that the endpoint should be HTML+RDFa.
15:48:45 [msporny]
ShaneM: The thing that is referenced should be an HTML+RDFa document.
15:49:00 [msporny]
Ralph: The whole semantic web stack should be dereference-able in some RDF form.
15:49:40 [msporny]
ShaneM: In the case of Microformats, we talked about how to extend the XMP format that they use with RDFa to give something that looks almost exactly like Microformats.
15:49:46 [markbirbeck]
We already support this:
15:49:51 [markbirbeck]
@xmlns:author="http://example.org/author"
15:50:03 [markbirbeck]
@rel="author:"
15:51:14 [Ralph]
(not Adobe XMP, evidently?)
15:52:10 [msporny]
markbirbeck: I think we should move away from using prefix:suffix to something that could expand without the colon.
15:52:39 [msporny]
markbirbeck: so why not this: xmlns:author="http://example.org/author" and then rel="author"
15:52:52 [msporny]
markbirbeck: It makes it very easy to do cut/paste snippets.
15:53:16 [msporny]
markbirbeck: This is the "let's make it easier" approach.
15:53:24 [msporny]
markbirbeck: So, how do we define these things?
15:53:38 [msporny]
markbirbeck: We all agree that we need to create @prefix, so why not @token.
15:53:48 [msporny]
markbirbeck: If we are going to add a new attribute, why not add this feature as well?
15:54:02 [msporny]
ShaneM: This is a fine approach.
15:54:38 [ShaneM]
s/XMP/XMDP/
15:55:22 [msporny]
ShaneM: Ben's position is to say that it works.
15:55:44 [msporny]
Ralph: There will probably be a discussion on xmlns:*
15:56:57 [markbirbeck]
"RDFa means extensibility (which is why some people will never support it)": http://webbackplane.com/mark-birbeck/blog/2009/01/rdfa-means-extensibility
15:57:22 [msporny]
Ralph: xmlns:* isn't necessarily dead, but we might want to introduce another mapping mechanism to aid the discussion.
15:57:43 [markbirbeck]
Good luck Ralph.
15:58:12 [msporny]
ShaneM: So, we could write a new CURIE spec since there isn't a current CURIE spec.
15:58:13 [Ralph]
s/There will probably be/There will be a discussion on distributed extensibility in HTML and that will probably include
15:58:38 [msporny]
ShaneM: if we change anything like this, we're going to have to rev the spec.
15:58:48 [msporny]
ShaneM: If we are going to rev the spec, it would be a good change.
15:59:09 [msporny]
markbirbeck: If we add @prefix, why not call it @token - that's where I was coming from.
15:59:29 [ShaneM]
there should be incremental improvement of RDFa by updating the spec.
15:59:35 [Ralph]
s/XMP format/XMDP format
15:59:42 [msporny]
markbirbeck: People still have to decide whether to use RDFa or Microformats.
15:59:55 [Ralph]
s/(not Adobe XMDP, evidently?)//
16:00:00 [msporny]
markbirbeck: We should consider that when revving the spec.
16:00:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
16:00:34 [Steven]
+1
16:00:59 [msporny]
Topic: Case sensitivity in xmlns:
16:01:13 [Ralph]
s/we might want to introduce another mapping mechanism/I'm ok with referring to it by a different name
16:01:14 [ShaneM]
errata is here http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014-errata/
16:01:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
16:02:15 [msporny]
ShaneM: DOcument authors should use lower-case xmlns:prefix-names to be compatible across all processors.
16:02:40 [msporny]
ShaneM: +1
16:02:44 [msporny]
Ralph: +1
16:03:12 [Ralph]
I want to claim victory on my action w.r.t. test suite license -- see http://www.w3.org/2009/06/11-rdfa-minutes.html#item01
16:03:27 [msporny]
yes, sorry - I didn't fix that in the last minutes.
16:03:33 [msporny]
victory!
16:04:09 [msporny]
markbirbeck: Is it not possible to rev the spec and include HTML?
16:04:14 [msporny]
ShaneM: No, absolutely not.
16:04:27 [msporny]
ShaneM: not chartered to do so.
16:04:36 [msporny]
Ralph: That is correct.
16:05:22 [msporny]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:05:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
16:05:43 [msporny]
Present+ Ralph_Swick
16:07:20 [markbirbeck]
http://www.semanticuniverse.com/premium/audio/semtech-2009-audio-semantics-google-rfda-microformats-and-more.html
16:07:21 [Zakim]
-ShaneM
16:07:23 [Zakim]
-Ralph
16:07:24 [Zakim]
-Steven
16:07:26 [Zakim]
-markbirbeck
16:07:39 [msporny]
Ralph, want me to clean up and send you the minutes?
16:07:46 [markbirbeck]
That's the SemTech talk from Google, for those who couldn't be there.
16:07:51 [Ralph]
yes, please, Manu; thanks
16:07:55 [Zakim]
-msporny
16:07:57 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
16:07:58 [Zakim]
Attendees were ShaneM, Steven, msporny, +0208761aaaa, markbirbeck, Ralph
16:08:15 [msporny]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:08:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
16:08:51 [ShaneM]
here's what I was refering to:
16:08:52 [ShaneM]
As to "polyglot" - again, I have to disagree. There is nothing in the current HTML5 draft that permits the use of rich compound documents that bring in multiple namespaces. There is also nothing that makes it possible to define extensions to the language in either of its forms. If there were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
16:08:52 [ShaneM]
XHTML M12N permits these things and more. That extensibility is at the core of XHTML and the XHTML Family of modules and markup languages. XHTML conforming processors will happily adapt to new XHTML family markup languages, so I can sit in my little walled garden and add elements to my private markup language and it will still. just. work. That's the whole point. And HTML5 misses it. Completely.
16:09:32 [markbirbeck]
Eloquently put.
16:09:55 [markbirbeck]
But if we were defining extensibility today, would we use XML schemas and DTDs?
16:10:06 [markbirbeck]
There must be an easier way. :)
16:10:10 [Ralph]
:)
16:12:11 [msporny]
rrsagent, bye
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
I see 9 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-actions.rdf :
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben to author wiki page with charter template for RDFa IG. Manu to provide support where needed. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action10] [1]
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-irc#T15-08-53
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben to prepare "how to write RDFa" screencast with fragment parser [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action05] [2]
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-irc#T15-09-02
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [3]
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-irc#T15-09-11
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Mark to send Ben ubiquity related wizard stuff [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [4]
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-irc#T15-09-23
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] [5]
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-irc#T15-09-45
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph find the statement on test suite copyright [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] [6]
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-irc#T15-09-58
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph make a request for an RDFa issue tracker instance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [7]
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-irc#T15-10-13
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph or Steven fix the .htaccess for the XHTML namespace [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01].org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] [8]
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-irc#T15-10-31-1
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15] [9]
16:12:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-rdfa-irc#T15-10-58
16:12:22 [ShaneM]
yeah... I am sure there is. but the m12n architecture permits the use of those easier ways
16:12:26 [ShaneM]
that's just implementation detials