14:32:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:32:45 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/24-rdfa-irc
14:32:48 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:32:52 <msporny> zakim, this will be rdfa
14:32:52 <Zakim> ok, msporny; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 28 minutes
14:46:16 <msporny> scribe: msporny
14:46:24 <msporny> Present: Manu_Sporny, Ivan_Herman
14:46:32 <msporny> Regrets: Michael_Hausenblas
14:46:47 <msporny> Meeting: RDF in XHTML Task Force
14:46:59 <msporny> Chair: Ben_Adida
14:47:23 <msporny> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Sep/0282.html
14:47:34 <msporny> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-rdfa-minutes.html
14:48:24 <msporny> rrsagent, make minutes public
14:48:24 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', msporny.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:48:40 <msporny> rrsagent, make log public
14:48:46 <msporny> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:48:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/24-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
14:56:10 <ivan> ivan has joined #rdfa
14:59:14 <msporny> zakim, code?
14:59:14 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), msporny
15:00:17 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
15:00:24 <Zakim> +chaals
15:00:34 <msporny> zakim, I am ??chaals
15:00:34 <Zakim> sorry, msporny, I do not see a party named '??chaals'
15:00:38 <msporny> zakim, I am chaals
15:00:38 <Zakim> ok, msporny, I now associate you with chaals
15:01:45 <msporny> zakim chaals is msporny
15:01:52 <msporny> zakim, chaals is msporny
15:01:52 <Zakim> +msporny; got it
15:03:21 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:03:21 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:03:22 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:04:51 <Zakim> +McCarron
15:04:54 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:05:02 <Steven> Steven has joined #rdfa
15:05:06 <msporny> Present+ Shane_McCarron
15:05:15 <msporny> Present+ Steven_Pemberton
15:05:18 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida
15:05:18 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
15:05:24 <benadida> benadida has joined #rdfa
15:05:27 <msporny> Present+ Ben_Adida
15:05:34 <msporny> Present+ Mark_Birbeck
15:05:36 <markbirbeck> Just coming...
15:06:09 <benadida> zakim, who is on the call?
15:06:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see msporny, Ivan, McCarron, Ben_Adida
15:06:23 <ShaneM> zakim, McCarron is ShaneM
15:06:23 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
15:06:48 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
15:06:48 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:06:50 <Zakim> +Steven
15:07:04 <msporny> Ben: See the xmlns:* post I made?
15:07:14 <msporny> Manu: Does it duplicate the same test we did 2 months ago?
15:09:14 <hhalpin> hhalpin has joined #rdfa
15:09:34 <markbirbeck> zkim, code?
15:09:39 <markbirbeck> zakim, code?
15:09:43 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
15:09:49 <markbirbeck> zakim, ta
15:09:49 <Zakim> I don't understand 'ta', markbirbeck
15:10:14 <markbirbeck> g'day Steven.
15:10:30 <markbirbeck> :)
15:11:15 <ivan> q+
15:12:04 <Zakim> +markbirbeck
15:12:41 <msporny> Ben: Maybe, but this works now (and it wasn't working before)
15:13:21 <ivan> q-
15:13:41 <msporny> Manu: Can we add this to the agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0959.html
15:14:54 <msporny> Topic: Action Items
15:15:26 <msporny> ACTION: Ben to update JS xmlns getter code on implementors' guide for xhtml mime type support [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action02]
15:15:30 <msporny> -- done
15:15:59 <msporny> Topic: ISSUE-239: errata text to clarify CURIE context
15:16:15 <benadida> proposal text from Shane --> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Sep/0277.html
15:16:40 <msporny> Ben: Jeni had some issues and Shane wrote some errata text to cover these issues.
15:17:42 <ivan> q+
15:19:10 <markbirbeck> q+, Jeni also suggested that developers might assume that prefixes are already defined for 'xmlns' and 'xml'.
15:19:34 <markbirbeck> q+ to say that Jeni also suggested that developers might assume that prefixes are already defined for 'xmlns' and 'xml'.
15:19:45 <benadida> ack Ivan
15:20:01 <msporny> Manu: #6 should we say something about xmlns specifically? Or just refer to the spec.
15:20:11 <msporny> Ivan: What about uppercase vs non-uppercase?
15:20:20 <msporny> Shane: We already have an errata item for that.
15:20:36 <benadida> ack markbirbeck
15:20:36 <Zakim> markbirbeck, you wanted to say that Jeni also suggested that developers might assume that prefixes are already defined for 'xmlns' and 'xml'.
15:21:00 <msporny> Mark: Jeni also raised the question if there should already be a prefix mapping for xmlns and xml
15:21:09 <msporny> Mark: It's worth considering.
15:21:27 <msporny> Mark: If you think of it in the case of namespaces, it's important.
15:21:40 <msporny> Mark: It's not a straighforward issue, but there is an argument that those two should be there by default.
15:22:15 <msporny> Shane: That would change the spec, don't know if we can do that in an errata
15:22:44 <msporny> Shane: For example, it would affect XMLLiterals.
15:22:58 <msporny> Mark: I don't think so - xmlns and xml are included by default in the XML pipeline.
15:24:17 <msporny> Mark: We say that it's initialized empty, but in a way it should be initialized with xmlns and xml.
15:24:55 <msporny> Shane: Ah, it's not legal to declare xmlns and xml.
15:25:00 <msporny> Shane: ah yes, catch-22.
15:25:06 <msporny> Shane: ok
15:26:36 <msporny> Ben: So, Mark - you are saying it should be initialized with xml and xmlns.
15:27:03 <msporny> Ben: So, it's not just an errata - it could change the conformance.
15:27:17 <msporny> Mark: I don't know if it would change conformance criteria...
15:28:08 <msporny> Ben: I think this has to be a part of the 1.1 rev.
15:28:37 <msporny> Mark: Couldn't we do some of this in HTML+RDFa spec?
15:29:56 <msporny> Ben: We run the risk of duplicating rules, probably not a good idea.
15:32:31 <ivan> q+
15:34:32 <msporny> ack ivan
15:34:58 <ShaneM> Remember that there is room for an RDFa Syntax 1.0 Second Edition AND room for RDFa Syntax version 1.1
15:35:13 <msporny> Ivan: My impression is that HTML5 progress is slow, we might be able to get an RDFa 1.1 out before HTML5 goes to CR.
15:35:23 <msporny> Ivan: Let's cross the bridge when we get there.
15:36:04 <msporny> Mark: Why not put this into RDFa 1.1 and publish that and reference that from HTML+RDFa?
15:36:18 <msporny> Ben: I think we are doing that, we're moving forward in parallel.
15:37:07 <msporny> Mark: Is there an RDFa 1.1 document right now? Why don't we start working on an RDFa 1.1 version.
15:37:33 <msporny> Mark: The problems we're solving for HTML5 should also go in RDFa 1.1
15:38:05 <msporny> Ben: So we're talking about a large encompassing document?
15:38:30 <msporny> Mark: So we integrate HTML+RDFa into RDFa Core 1.1
15:38:57 <msporny> Mark: and add some new things for RDFa Core 1.1
15:39:10 <msporny> q+ need to talk about Infoset issues
15:40:16 <msporny> Ben: Worried about how this might be perceived - we should start writing RDFa Core 1.1 while working on HTML+RDFa and doing errata for XHTML+RDFa
15:41:00 <msporny> Ben: We should be very diligent in working with HTML WG.
15:41:21 <msporny> ack msporny
15:42:01 <msporny> Ben: Point #5 - can you not use reserved words in @property and etc.
15:42:20 <msporny> Mark: We can loosen that restriction in RDFa Core 1.1
15:42:30 <msporny> Ben: This doesn't change what the spec says?
15:42:50 <msporny> Shane: Yes, it just gathers what the document already says.
15:42:51 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014-errata/Overview.html
15:42:56 <msporny> Ben: Anybody want more time to review this?
15:42:59 <ShaneM> +1
15:43:00 <ivan> +1
15:43:00 <markbirbeck> +1
15:43:06 <msporny> +1 for passing this as an errata
15:43:17 <Steven> +1
15:43:19 <msporny> Mark: So, this isn't a correction?
15:43:27 <msporny> Steven: No, it can be clarification as well
15:43:38 <benadida> RESOLUTION ISSUE-239 is resolved as proposed by Shane
15:43:40 <Steven> That wasn't me
15:44:07 <benadida> scribenick: benadida
15:44:39 <benadida> Manu: convo with Henri, working to understand the xmlns DOM issue.
15:44:49 <benadida> ... actually a technical issue. implementation issue in infoset parsers.
15:45:07 <msporny> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Sep/0058.html
15:45:33 <benadida> ... working with Philip to integrate his tests.
15:45:49 <benadida> ... straight-forward, no need to discuss at length.
15:47:02 <benadida> ... Henri's issue: XHTML and HTML docs go through diff tool chains, no issue with XHTML docs in HTML5 toolchain.
15:47:45 <benadida> ... browsers are moving towards namespace-aware infoset models.
15:47:50 <benadida> ... with very specific APIs.
15:48:00 <benadida> ... but when we're parsing an HTML doc in non-XML mode, there is a problem.
15:48:23 <benadida> ... with infoset-based parsers, what happens to attributes xmlns:*?
15:48:40 <benadida> ... infoset-based parsers do not have a DOM Level 1 interface, attributes on a node.
15:49:04 <benadida> ... with XHTML docs, straight-forward, just use namespace lookup
15:49:22 <benadida> ... but with HTML mode infoset doc, no namespaces.
15:49:34 <benadida> ... 'xmlns:foo' has been changed to some other string in the null namespace.
15:49:59 <benadida> ... Henri and Jonas say that 'xmlns:*' is destroyed.
15:50:28 <benadida> ... this is specified in the HTML5 spec.
15:50:41 <benadida> Steven: same bit of spec that i was complaining about?
15:50:45 <benadida> Manu: yes.
15:50:57 <benadida> Mark: just to be clear, this is something that HTML5 itself has defined.
15:51:05 <benadida> Manu: because that's how the parsers work.
15:51:15 <benadida> ... they munge up the names.
15:51:21 <benadida> ... not something that was made up.
15:51:38 <benadida> ... makes sense that they did it this way, because nothing to do with XML.
15:51:57 <benadida> Ben: but why munge the string?
15:52:09 <benadida> Manu: internal model is infoset based.
15:52:59 <ShaneM> q+ to ask about infoset parsing
15:53:43 <benadida> Manu: we could say that this needs to be changed.
15:53:53 <benadida> ... then we have to make a case to vendors.
15:53:59 <benadida> Steven: so why does it work now?
15:54:17 <benadida> Manu: because they've hacked a DOM layer on top of the infoset parser.
15:54:24 <benadida> ... but they don't like working with DOM internally.
15:54:52 <markbirbeck> q+
15:54:56 <benadida> ack Shane
15:54:56 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about infoset parsing
15:55:15 <benadida> Shane: appreciate that internally they're doing something to the string, but why do they or we care?
15:55:20 <benadida> ... this isn't exposed anywhere, is it?
15:55:27 <benadida> ... exposed in lxml parser.
15:55:59 <benadida> Steven: browsers are intent on dealing with existing content. How could they possibly change the behavior of this.
15:56:14 <benadida> Manu: deal with existing content just fine.
15:56:28 <benadida> ... they don't have any namespaces.
15:57:00 <ivan> q+
15:57:09 <ivan> ack need
15:57:09 <Zakim> need, you wanted to talk about Infoset issues
15:57:15 <benadida> Manu: it's very importance implementation guidance.
15:57:47 <benadida> ... Henri wants us to change the behavior of the coercion-to-infoset rules to actually create the namespaces.
15:58:02 <benadida> ... so that both in HTML and XML modes, that namespaces are defined.
15:58:21 <benadida> ... the solution is exactly what we want to see happen.
15:58:42 <benadida> ... Henri says that coercion-to-infoset should create namespaces.
15:58:49 <benadida> ack ivan
15:59:02 <benadida> Ivan: is there any chance that this will happen?
16:00:17 <benadida> Manu: some inconsistency between spec and mailing list claim
16:00:27 <benadida> Mark: not true, it's described *as if* it's a DOM.
16:00:34 <ivan> q+
16:00:49 <benadida> Mark: at moment independent of any structure.
16:01:14 <benadida> ... we have to be careful because there's a difference between writing "how to implement" and writing a spec that is general enough for implementation in the future.
16:01:29 <benadida> ... correct to ask "anything more than implementation guidance?"
16:01:40 <benadida> ... if we can smooth the path, definitely, but as Ivan says, can we really see this happening?
16:01:52 <benadida> ... alternatively, why can't we just use the munged name?
16:02:21 <benadida> ... should we cover this scenario, too?
16:02:39 <benadida> ... we shouldn't depend on the change to infoset.
16:03:23 <benadida> ack markbirbeck
16:03:31 <benadida> ack Ivan
16:03:42 <msporny> q+ gotta go
16:04:03 <benadida> Ivan: do they want the rdfa spec written in terms of DOM?
16:04:15 <benadida> Manu: specifically yes, as function of DOM level 2, and as infoset parser.
16:05:52 <benadida> Ivan: don't they have to expose in terms of DOM2 anyways?
16:05:58 <benadida> Manu: absolutely right, nothing to do with that.
16:06:11 <benadida> Ivan: why do *we* have to specify that?
16:08:49 <msporny> I really, really have to go
16:09:56 <Zakim> -msporny
16:11:12 <Zakim> -ShaneM
16:11:53 <ivan> [[[
16:11:55 <ivan> Ivan, I take the point that RDFa and GRDDL to be as long as the others. So please make the chapter longer but without any false padding 
16:11:56 <ivan> ]]
16:17:34 <Zakim> -Steven
16:17:44 <markbirbeck> @Steven -- great.
16:18:00 <markbirbeck> (re-Gov)
16:19:13 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida
16:19:14 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:19:16 <Zakim> -markbirbeck
16:19:18 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
16:19:19 <Zakim> Attendees were msporny, Ivan, Ben_Adida, ShaneM, Steven, markbirbeck
16:25:53 <ivan> ben, it is probably a good idea to write something about the usage of RDFa in (SKOS) vocabulary publication like the library of congress. I can add that later if you add the headline for it... 
16:37:24 <msporny> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:37:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/24-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
17:01:26 <msporny> msporny has joined #rdfa
17:01:49 <msporny> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/24-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
17:04:11 <msporny> s/That wasn't me/Topic: Adding Precision for DOM Level 2 and Infoset-based processing models/
17:04:14 <msporny> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:04:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/24-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
17:08:44 <msporny> s/working with DOM internally./working with DOM Level 2 internally. Others like working with a clean Infoset-based API - like lxml and the html5lib parser./
17:08:48 <msporny> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:08:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/24-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
17:09:31 <msporny> s/importance/important/
17:18:33 <msporny> Manu: because it's not quite clear what you do in the case of an HTML document processed through an Infoset pipeline and resulting in a transformation from "xmlns:foo=http://example.org/foo#" in the source document to an Infoset triple in the Infoset model (namespace, localname, value) -> (null, "xmlnsU00003Cfoo", "http://example.org/foo#") -> all of our rules say something about "xmlns:" and nothing about "xmlnsU00003A" - so we need to clarify what we mean 
17:18:34 <msporny> in this case.
17:18:43 <msporny> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:18:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/24-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
17:19:32 <msporny> s/@Steven -- great./scribenick: msporny/
17:19:38 <msporny> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:19:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/24-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
18:09:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa
18:09:31 <msporny> rrsagent, bye
18:09:31 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/24-rdfa-actions.rdf :
18:09:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben to update JS xmlns getter code on implementors' guide for xhtml mime type support [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action02] [1]
18:09:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/24-rdfa-irc#T15-15-26