IRC log of rdfa on 2009-09-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:32:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:32:45 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
14:47:34 [msporny]
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 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:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), msporny
15:00:17 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
15:00:24 [Zakim]
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]
15:04:51 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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:+ 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]
15:12:04 [Zakim]
15:12:41 [msporny]
Ben: Maybe, but this works now (and it wasn't working before)
15:13:21 [ivan]
15:13:41 [msporny]
Manu: Can we add this to the agenda:
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]
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 -->
15:16:40 [msporny]
Ben: Jeni had some issues and Shane wrote some errata text to cover these issues.
15:17:42 [ivan]
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]
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]
15:42:56 [msporny]
Ben: Anybody want more time to review this?
15:42:59 [ShaneM]
15:43:00 [ivan]
15:43:00 [markbirbeck]
15:43:06 [msporny]
+1 for passing this as an errata
15:43:17 [Steven]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
16:11:12 [Zakim]
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]
16:17:44 [markbirbeck]
@Steven -- great.
16:18:00 [markbirbeck]
16:19:13 [Zakim]
16:19:14 [Zakim]
16:19:16 [Zakim]
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 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 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 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 msporny
17:09:31 [msporny]
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=">" in the source document to an Infoset triple in the Infoset model (namespace, localname, value) -> (null, "xmlnsU00003Cfoo", "") -> 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 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 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 :
18:09:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben to update JS xmlns getter code on implementors' guide for xhtml mime type support [recorded in] [1]
18:09:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in