See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribenick: mhausenblas
<msporny> hi, Michael :)
<msporny> thanks :)
<msporny> seriously, you need the question mark?
<msporny> awesome! Thank you.
<msporny> So, are you ready to scribe two simultaneous agendas at the same time?
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] 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] [CONTINUES]
Ben: Regarding xmlns: review status
<benadida> not for xmlns="..."
Ben: wondering (independent of RDFa) for HTML5 to embrace xmlns due to round-trip serialisation
benadida: what if someone starts
with HTML5 and wants to add a widget on its own
... so XMLNS would be the best way to achieve it
... it is an extensibility mechanism which is very useful (cf. Facebook usage, etc.)
msporny: so, the discussion
should be widened to 'how does HTML5 do round-trip
... second issue is then how to add widgets into DOM and have the browser preserve it
... I got a bit of a push back from certain people re XMLNS
benadida: in any case, either a
mechanism for distributed extensibility is very useful
... either XMLNS is already available (as Doug S. pointed out) or it should be
msporny: desire to have the same markup for XHTML5 and HTML5
benadida: yeah, agree. we just say: if they want the extensibility, they can
msporny: we need to make clear that XHTML5 is an important part of the HTML5
benadida: regarding XMLLiteral
msporny: I like Mark's
... that is, default behaviour should be changed to
<msporny> if we have this:
<msporny> <span property="foo:bar">this is <b>one</b>example</span>
<msporny> the literal that would be produced is this: "this is one example"
<msporny> that was Mark's proposal
benadida: so the default would be datatype=""
<benadida> PROPOSAL: for RDFa in HTML(4/5), an absence of @datatype defaults to plain literal, even when non-text-nodes are present in the DOM subtree.
Michael: note that TC11 needs to be reviewed again
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to query the RDFa TF and ML to gather feedback regarding the XMLLiteral default for @datatype [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/23-rdfa-minutes.html#action02]
Ben: great progress today - if no other issues we move on
Ben: test cases and implementation conformance
<Ralph> [apologies, was buried in other tasks. Am I needed at [the rest of] this telecon?]
Ben: Michael can you take over it
Michael: fine with me, but wanna check back with Shane
msporny: we should modularise the TC
Michael: yep, good idea (can be done via an additional language flag, that is property in the manifest)
benadida: would love to have a unified suite
msporny: I see that deref stuff
might go too far
... what I don't see is how different vocs can be mixed in your proposal, Ben
benadida: however, Mark's precedence rule can yield to unexpected behaviour if the voc's term are added
Michael: did we agree on the use case (the problem we're trying to solve) yet, on the Wiki, on the ML?
msporny: I agree. I'm thinking of a somewhat different UC as Ben just described
Michael: how about listing the different views on the UC? Ben, fancy taking an action on starting this discussion?
benadida: msporny, you thought we
are only discussion @profile only in the head?
... my proposal is @profile everywhere
<benadida> @prefix or @namespace or @context
Michael: @vocab :)
benadida: interesting discussion, yes. I need to make my proposal clearer and define the UC