13:53:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/15-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/15-rdfa-irc ←
13:57:24 <manu> trackbot, prepare telecon
Manu Sporny: trackbot, prepare telecon ←
13:57:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:57:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
13:57:28 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes ←
13:57:29 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
13:57:29 <trackbot> Date: 15 July 2010
13:57:47 <manu> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0080.html
13:57:56 <manu> Chair: Manu
13:58:17 <manu> Regrets: Benjamin, BenA, MarkB
13:58:17 <manu> Present: Ivan Herman, Knud Möller, Manu Sporny, Shane McCarron, Steven, Toby Inkster
14:03:18 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:03:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], ShaneM, tinkster, Ivan, Steven, +3539149aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see [IPcaller], ShaneM, tinkster, Ivan, Steven, +3539149aaaa ←
14:03:42 <manu> scribenick: manu
(Scribe set to Manu Sporny)
14:03:45 <manu> Scribe: Manu
14:03:59 <manu> manu: Any additions to the agenda?
Manu Sporny: Any additions to the agenda? ←
14:04:24 <manu> steven: Can we can talk about XHTML Basic and RDFa?
Steven Pemberton: Can we can talk about XHTML Basic and RDFa? ←
14:04:25 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:04:30 <manu> Topic: XHTML Basic and RDFa
14:04:42 <manu> steven: There has been discussion about the XHTML Basic checker
Steven Pemberton: There has been discussion about the XHTML Basic checker ←
14:04:58 <manu> steven: People have been concerned that checker doesn't allow use of RDFa in XHTML Basic.
Steven Pemberton: People have been concerned that checker doesn't allow use of RDFa in XHTML Basic. ←
14:05:15 <manu> steven: Issue is that the checker is based on W3C spec, so changing it isn't as trivial as one would want.
Steven Pemberton: Issue is that the checker is based on W3C spec, so changing it isn't as trivial as one would want. ←
14:05:26 <manu> steven: We could provide an XHTML+RDFa DTD - that would resolve the issue.
Steven Pemberton: We could provide an XHTML+RDFa DTD - that would resolve the issue. ←
14:06:22 <manu> toby: Does the XHTML+RDFa 1.1 rec include a DTD? Could XHTML+RDFa use the DTD for XHTML+RDFa 1.1?
Toby Inkster: Does the XHTML+RDFa 1.1 rec include a DTD? Could XHTML+RDFa use the DTD for XHTML+RDFa 1.1? ←
14:06:24 <manu> ack ivan
ack ivan ←
14:06:39 <manu> ivan: Team discussion - just having just the DTD doesn't solve the problem of the mobile checker.
Ivan Herman: Team discussion - just having just the DTD doesn't solve the problem of the mobile checker. ←
14:06:57 <manu> ivan: people that are behind mobile web checker are looking at re-using XHTML Basic plus RDFa DTD.
Ivan Herman: people that are behind mobile web checker are looking at re-using XHTML Basic plus RDFa DTD. ←
14:07:12 <manu> ivan: Steven and I will ask Shane to put in the 10 minutes that he will need to do to make this work.
Ivan Herman: Steven and I will ask Shane to put in the 10 minutes that he will need to do to make this work. ←
14:07:27 <tinkster> toby: Can we include *two* DTDs in the XHTML+RDFa 1.1 Rec? i.e. an XHTML+RDFa DTD, and an XHTML Basic+RDFa DTD.
Toby Inkster: Can we include *two* DTDs in the XHTML+RDFa 1.1 Rec? i.e. an XHTML+RDFa DTD, and an XHTML Basic+RDFa DTD. [ Scribe Assist by Toby Inkster ] ←
14:07:43 <manu> ivan: The XHTML+RDFa 1.1 in the appendix has a complete DTD for XHTML 1.1 - we could place another one in the same document for XHTML Basic + RDFa 1.1
Ivan Herman: The XHTML+RDFa 1.1 in the appendix has a complete DTD for XHTML 1.1 - we could place another one in the same document for XHTML Basic + RDFa 1.1 ←
14:07:53 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss DTDs
Shane McCarron: q+ to discuss DTDs ←
14:08:02 <manu> ivan: This is easy to do, we don't lose anything, and it gets RDFa validating in XHTML Basic.
Ivan Herman: This is easy to do, we don't lose anything, and it gets RDFa validating in XHTML Basic. ←
14:08:22 <manu> shane: Yesterday on the PF WG, they want XHTML + ARIA + RDFa, and HTML4 + ARIA + RDFa
Shane McCarron: Yesterday on the PF WG, they want XHTML + ARIA + RDFa, and HTML4 + ARIA + RDFa ←
14:08:39 <manu> manu: Does RDFa WG need to be involved in this?
Manu Sporny: Does RDFa WG need to be involved in this? ←
14:08:59 <manu> shane: No, PFWG will be dealing with these issues, just letting everyone know.'
Shane McCarron: No, PFWG will be dealing with these issues, just letting everyone know.' ←
14:09:12 <manu> manu: Great news that RDFa is being integrated by XHTML Basic community as well as ARIA folks.
Manu Sporny: Great news that RDFa is being integrated by XHTML Basic community as well as ARIA folks. ←
14:10:11 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-26: Error Reporting Mechanism
14:10:51 <manu> manu: can't make much progress today - benjamin and mark aren't here.
Manu Sporny: can't make much progress today - benjamin and mark aren't here. ←
14:10:55 <manu> manu: Ivan has updates for us.
Manu Sporny: Ivan has updates for us. ←
14:11:10 <manu> Ivan: I've added language into RDFa Core, text for the simpler version of the error triples.
Ivan Herman: I've added language into RDFa Core, text for the simpler version of the error triples. ←
14:11:29 <manu> ivan: if we go with those, we still have to define error classes for classes other than the @profile one.
Ivan Herman: if we go with those, we still have to define error classes for classes other than the @profile one. ←
14:11:36 <manu> ivan: that's one thing I did.
Ivan Herman: that's one thing I did. ←
14:11:53 <manu> ivan: The other thing is that the namespace document /ns/rdfa - there is an RDFa version of that document...
Ivan Herman: The other thing is that the namespace document /ns/rdfa - there is an RDFa version of that document... ←
14:12:08 <manu> ivan: The RDFa version that I have has both the old terms and the new terms for error management.
Ivan Herman: The RDFa version that I have has both the old terms and the new terms for error management. ←
14:12:24 <manu> ivan: We're waiting on Mark to either agree, or to prove us wrong as this being valid way to go forward.
Ivan Herman: We're waiting on Mark to either agree, or to prove us wrong as this being valid way to go forward. ←
14:14:43 <manu> toby: There are RDF libraries that process other languages.
Toby Inkster: There are RDF libraries that process other languages. ←
14:14:52 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:15:09 <manu> ack shanem
ack shanem ←
14:15:09 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss DTDs
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to discuss DTDs ←
14:15:11 <manu> ack ivan
ack ivan ←
14:15:19 <manu> toby: like TURTLE, RDF/XML... those have other error reporting mechanisms - we shouldn't say that those mechanisms MUST use the Error Reporting mechanism that this specification defines.
Toby Inkster: like TURTLE, RDF/XML... those have other error reporting mechanisms - we shouldn't say that those mechanisms MUST use the Error Reporting mechanism that this specification defines. ←
14:15:38 <manu> ivan: I understand Toby's point, if I have the distiller and integrate it into RDFlib, the situation becomes more complicated.
Ivan Herman: I understand Toby's point, if I have the distiller and integrate it into RDFlib, the situation becomes more complicated. ←
14:15:40 <manu> q+
q+ ←
14:15:54 <manu> ivan: I would be happy to say that the generation of the processor graph is not required, it is SHOULD but not a MUST.
Ivan Herman: I would be happy to say that the generation of the processor graph is not required, it is SHOULD but not a MUST. ←
14:16:14 <manu> manu: Toby, would that address your concerns?
Manu Sporny: Toby, would that address your concerns? ←
14:16:17 <manu> toby: yes
Toby Inkster: yes ←
14:16:23 <manu> q-
q- ←
14:19:46 <manu> manu: There is an argument to be made about having a common environment when dealing with RDFa. So regardless of whether you are using a Python, Ruby, C++, C# or Perl RDFa Processor, the same errors, in the same format, are required to be returned to you. People working with RDFa Processors won't have to learn a completely new error reporting mechanism if consistent error reporting is a requirement of RDFa Processors.
Manu Sporny: There is an argument to be made about having a common environment when dealing with RDFa. So regardless of whether you are using a Python, Ruby, C++, C# or Perl RDFa Processor, the same errors, in the same format, are required to be returned to you. People working with RDFa Processors won't have to learn a completely new error reporting mechanism if consistent error reporting is a requirement of RDFa Processors. ←
14:21:02 <manu> toby: If we have a SHOULD, if implementers implement the Error Reporting Mechanism, they MUST implement all errors.
Toby Inkster: If we have a SHOULD, if implementers implement the Error Reporting Mechanism, they MUST implement all errors. ←
14:21:59 <tinkster> i.e. "all or nothing"
Toby Inkster: i.e. "all or nothing" ←
14:22:27 <manu> PROPOSAL: The Error Reporting Mechanism in RDFa Core 1.1 is optional, but if an implementation includes it, the implementation MUST implement reporting of all errors.
PROPOSED: The Error Reporting Mechanism in RDFa Core 1.1 is optional, but if an implementation includes it, the implementation MUST implement reporting of all errors. ←
14:22:37 <Steven_> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:22:39 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:22:40 <manu> +1
+1 ←
14:22:40 <tinkster> +1
Toby Inkster: +1 ←
14:22:41 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:22:44 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:22:53 <manu> RESOLVED: The Error Reporting Mechanism in RDFa Core 1.1 is optional, but if an implementation includes it, the implementation MUST implement reporting of all errors.
RESOLVED: The Error Reporting Mechanism in RDFa Core 1.1 is optional, but if an implementation includes it, the implementation MUST implement reporting of all errors. ←
14:23:16 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-20: Deep Processing of XMLLiteral
14:24:12 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:24:13 <manu> manu: Waiting on Mark
Manu Sporny: Waiting on Mark ←
14:24:16 <manu> ack ivan
ack ivan ←
14:24:31 <manu> manu: Why do we want to support Deep Processing of XMLLiterals? There doesn't seem to be a good use case.
Manu Sporny: Why do we want to support Deep Processing of XMLLiterals? There doesn't seem to be a good use case. ←
14:25:21 <manu> ivan: I seem to remember that we had some discussion last December on the mailing list, it was decided that deep processing is required because this is what RDFa 1.0 defines.
Ivan Herman: I seem to remember that we had some discussion last December on the mailing list, it was decided that deep processing is required because this is what RDFa 1.0 defines. ←
14:25:28 <tinkster> no, RDFa 1.0 forbids it.
Toby Inkster: no, RDFa 1.0 forbids it. ←
14:26:12 <manu> manu: Toby is correct, RDFa 1.0 forbids deep processing of XML Literals.
Manu Sporny: Toby is correct, RDFa 1.0 forbids deep processing of XML Literals. ←
14:26:31 <manu> ivan: so, if RDFa 1.0 forbids it - why is this suddenly an issue for now?
Ivan Herman: so, if RDFa 1.0 forbids it - why is this suddenly an issue for now? ←
14:26:41 <manu> tinkster: Stephane said that it's very useful.
Toby Inkster: Stephane said that it's very useful. ←
14:27:15 <ShaneM> From RDFa 1.0: Once the triple has been created, if the [datatype] of the [current object literal] is rdf:XMLLiteral, then the [recurse] flag is set to false.
Shane McCarron: From RDFa 1.0: Once the triple has been created, if the [datatype] of the [current object literal] is rdf:XMLLiteral, then the [recurse] flag is set to false. ←
14:27:41 <manu> tinkster: It's useful when you're processing an XMLLiteral to specify the abstract, title, and body of an article. The abstract, title, and body /could/ have additional triples in them.
Toby Inkster: It's useful when you're processing an XMLLiteral to specify the abstract, title, and body of an article. The abstract, title, and body /could/ have additional triples in them. ←
14:27:53 <manu> tinkster: but you also want to extract triples out of the data in the triple.
Toby Inkster: but you also want to extract triples out of the data in the triple. ←
14:28:12 <ShaneM> if the datatype is NOT XMLLiteral - if it is some other XML String type, then it will still be deeply traversed.
Shane McCarron: if the datatype is NOT XMLLiteral - if it is some other XML String type, then it will still be deeply traversed. ←
14:28:18 <manu> ivan: This is also useful for RSS feeds - in case you want to keep the structure, but also want to express triples in the structure.
Ivan Herman: This is also useful for RSS feeds - in case you want to keep the structure, but also want to express triples in the structure. ←
14:28:28 <manu> ivan: I'm a bit concerned about backwards compatibility issues...
Ivan Herman: I'm a bit concerned about backwards compatibility issues... ←
14:28:39 <manu> ivan: we generate a new set of triples, which is fine...
Ivan Herman: we generate a new set of triples, which is fine... ←
14:28:40 <tinkster> q+ to mention opt-in
Toby Inkster: q+ to mention opt-in ←
14:29:10 <manu> ivan: So you have old RDFa content, that generates new triples.
Ivan Herman: So you have old RDFa content, that generates new triples. ←
14:29:35 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss tobys idea
Shane McCarron: q+ to discuss tobys idea ←
14:29:44 <manu> ack tinkster
ack tinkster ←
14:29:44 <Zakim> tinkster, you wanted to mention opt-in
Zakim IRC Bot: tinkster, you wanted to mention opt-in ←
14:29:53 <manu> tinkster: What about something that allows one to opt-in?
Toby Inkster: What about something that allows one to opt-in? ←
14:30:18 <manu> manu: what about datatype="rdfa:TransparentXmlLiteral"
Manu Sporny: what about datatype="rdfa:TransparentXmlLiteral" ←
14:30:32 <manu> shane: I think doing something like that is fine.
Shane McCarron: I think doing something like that is fine. ←
14:31:47 <manu> q+
q+ ←
14:31:48 <tinkster> what about rdfa:TransparentXmlLiteral rdfs:subclassOf rdf:XMLLiteral .
Toby Inkster: what about rdfa:TransparentXmlLiteral rdfs:subclassOf rdf:XMLLiteral . ←
14:31:50 <manu> ack shanem
ack shanem ←
14:31:50 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss tobys idea
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to discuss tobys idea ←
14:32:09 <manu> shane: can't you follow your nose, and know its an XMLLiteral?
Shane McCarron: can't you follow your nose, and know its an XMLLiteral? ←
14:32:42 <manu> ivan: RDF environments don't work like that... defining a new datatype means a fairly complex thing... you have to define a new value-space, etc.
Ivan Herman: RDF environments don't work like that... defining a new datatype means a fairly complex thing... you have to define a new value-space, etc. ←
14:33:16 <manu> shane: Why can't we translate, in the RDFa Processor, rdfa:TransparentXmlLiteral to XMLLiteral and then continue processing?
Shane McCarron: Why can't we translate, in the RDFa Processor, rdfa:TransparentXmlLiteral to XMLLiteral and then continue processing? ←
14:33:42 <manu> ivan: I want to make sure we don't have the interpretation of a URL and then figure out what to do based on that URI.
Ivan Herman: I want to make sure we don't have the interpretation of a URL and then figure out what to do based on that URI. ←
14:33:52 <manu> ivan: It raises a lot of problems.
Ivan Herman: It raises a lot of problems. ←
14:34:09 <manu> ivan: If we go that way, we may need to introduce another attribute for deep processing.
Ivan Herman: If we go that way, we may need to introduce another attribute for deep processing. ←
14:34:19 <manu> Ivan: if we do that, we should be very convinced that we need that.
Ivan Herman: if we do that, we should be very convinced that we need that. ←
14:35:27 <manu> manu: There are other technologies that could solve this issue - HTML5 data-*, the class attribute, etc.
Manu Sporny: There are other technologies that could solve this issue - HTML5 data-*, the class attribute, etc. ←
14:35:40 <manu> ivan: This may be something for RDFa 2.0
Ivan Herman: This may be something for RDFa 2.0 ←
14:36:33 <manu> tinkster: There may be another easier way to opt into it.
Toby Inkster: There may be another easier way to opt into it. ←
14:36:54 <manu> tinkster: if we can find a simple way to do it.
Toby Inkster: if we can find a simple way to do it. ←
14:37:09 <ShaneM> I agree that it seems like a simple thing.... if there were a simple trigger I would be in favor of integrating it in 1.1
Shane McCarron: I agree that it seems like a simple thing.... if there were a simple trigger I would be in favor of integrating it in 1.1 ←
14:37:39 <manu> tinkster: let me have a think on it.
Toby Inkster: let me have a think on it. ←
14:37:51 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-24: Case-sensitive terms in HTML5
14:38:00 <manu> manu: Shane has a proposal for this...
Manu Sporny: Shane has a proposal for this... ←
14:38:23 <manu> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0082.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0082.html ←
14:39:05 <Zakim> -ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←
14:39:18 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:40:15 <manu> shane: When referencing TERMs in http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab - do a case insensitive comparison to figure out if we generate a triple.
Shane McCarron: When referencing TERMs in http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab - do a case insensitive comparison to figure out if we generate a triple. ←
14:40:39 <manu> ivan: I think we should combine this issue with other issues: the default URI
Ivan Herman: I think we should combine this issue with other issues: the default URI ←
14:41:11 <manu> ivan: there is a difference between RDFa 1.0 and what we have right now - RDFa 1.0 has a fixed set of terms.
Ivan Herman: there is a difference between RDFa 1.0 and what we have right now - RDFa 1.0 has a fixed set of terms. ←
14:41:23 <manu> ivan: That set is listed in the document and those are the terms in the default vocab.
Ivan Herman: That set is listed in the document and those are the terms in the default vocab. ←
14:41:35 <manu> ivan: In RDFa 1.1, we don't have a list of terms.
Ivan Herman: In RDFa 1.1, we don't have a list of terms. ←
14:41:41 <manu> q+ to discuss default URI
q+ to discuss default URI ←
14:41:45 <manu> ack ivan
ack ivan ←
14:41:47 <Zakim> +McCarron
Zakim IRC Bot: +McCarron ←
14:42:10 <ShaneM> zakim, mccarron is ShaneM
Shane McCarron: zakim, mccarron is ShaneM ←
14:42:10 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it ←
14:43:02 <manu> manu: We do specify the terms in XHTML+RDFa and HTML+RDFa
Manu Sporny: We do specify the terms in XHTML+RDFa and HTML+RDFa ←
14:43:26 <tinkster> In RDFa 1.1, rel="quux" maps to xhv vocab; in RDFa 1.0 it maps to nothing.
Toby Inkster: In RDFa 1.1, rel="quux" maps to xhv vocab; in RDFa 1.0 it maps to nothing. ←
14:43:57 <manu> shane: RDFa 1.0 enumerated these terms.
Shane McCarron: RDFa 1.0 enumerated these terms. ←
14:44:07 <manu> shane: I objected at the time, and still now, because the list is not extensible.
Shane McCarron: I objected at the time, and still now, because the list is not extensible. ←
14:44:21 <manu> shane: When the new spec got produced, it just got included.
Shane McCarron: When the new spec got produced, it just got included. ←
14:44:43 <ShaneM> Note that the values defined in this section may be removed from this document and placed in an external 'RDFa Profile' so that they can be maintained independent of the specification.
Shane McCarron: Note that the values defined in this section may be removed from this document and placed in an external 'RDFa Profile' so that they can be maintained independent of the specification. ←
14:45:02 <manu> ivan: The whole issue of lower-case and upper-case terms are related... that's all I was saying.
Ivan Herman: The whole issue of lower-case and upper-case terms are related... that's all I was saying. ←
14:46:30 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:46:44 <manu> ack [IP
ack [IP ←
14:46:44 <Zakim> [IPcaller], you wanted to discuss default URI
Zakim IRC Bot: [IPcaller], you wanted to discuss default URI ←
14:46:48 <manu> ack ivan
ack ivan ←
14:46:50 <Steven_> zakim, [IP is Manu
Steven Pemberton: zakim, [IP is Manu ←
14:46:50 <Zakim> +Manu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Manu; got it ←
14:46:57 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:46:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see Manu, tinkster, Ivan, Steven, +3539149aaaa, ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Manu, tinkster, Ivan, Steven, +3539149aaaa, ShaneM ←
14:47:05 <Steven_> q?
Steven Pemberton: q? ←
14:47:40 <manu> ivan: We should define the terms in the document - it's not extensible.
Ivan Herman: We should define the terms in the document - it's not extensible. ←
14:47:44 <ShaneM> q+ about html5
Shane McCarron: q+ about html5 ←
14:47:45 <tinkster> Zakim, aaaa is probably Knud
Toby Inkster: Zakim, aaaa is probably Knud ←
14:47:46 <Zakim> +Knud?; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Knud?; got it ←
14:48:12 <ShaneM> ack about
Shane McCarron: ack about ←
14:48:13 <manu> ivan: keeping the terms in the document as it is now, would work.
Ivan Herman: keeping the terms in the document as it is now, would work. ←
14:48:18 <ShaneM> ack html5
Shane McCarron: ack html5 ←
14:48:23 <manu> ivan: We should remove concept of default vocabulary from document
Ivan Herman: We should remove concept of default vocabulary from document ←
14:48:24 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss html5 terms
Shane McCarron: q+ to discuss html5 terms ←
14:48:34 <manu> ack shanem
ack shanem ←
14:48:34 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss html5 terms
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to discuss html5 terms ←
14:50:55 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:51:10 <manu> shane: Manu, you had said that there were IETF and HTML5 rammifications.
Shane McCarron: Manu, you had said that there were IETF and HTML5 rammifications. ←
14:51:20 <manu> manu: Yeah, so there are two separate issues here.
Manu Sporny: Yeah, so there are two separate issues here. ←
14:51:28 <manu> manu: One of them is that there is no longer a default vocabulary specified in HTML5.
Manu Sporny: One of them is that there is no longer a default vocabulary specified in HTML5. ←
14:51:32 <manu> manu: The other is that there are multiple LinkType registries now - one on the WHATWG Wiki, the other in the IETF, and another still in the XHTML/HTML vocab document. It would be good if we could harmonize all of these.
Manu Sporny: The other is that there are multiple LinkType registries now - one on the WHATWG Wiki, the other in the IETF, and another still in the XHTML/HTML vocab document. It would be good if we could harmonize all of these. ←
14:51:37 <manu> ivan: We could say that there is a profile file at a well-defined place that contains the HTML-related terms.
Ivan Herman: We could say that there is a profile file at a well-defined place that contains the HTML-related terms. ←
14:52:28 <manu> ivan: We could get into this type of issue: XML Tools get a DTD from our servers - but tools can cache DTDs for further processing.
Ivan Herman: We could get into this type of issue: XML Tools get a DTD from our servers - but tools can cache DTDs for further processing. ←
14:52:48 <manu> ivan: So, we could publish a profile document for TERMS, but we could say that processors SHOULD cache the profile.
Ivan Herman: So, we could publish a profile document for TERMS, but we could say that processors SHOULD cache the profile. ←
14:53:02 <manu> ivan: Authors are not required to use the profile for HTML and XHTML.
Ivan Herman: Authors are not required to use the profile for HTML and XHTML. ←
14:53:10 <manu> ivan: That's one way of doing things in a more flexible manner.
Ivan Herman: That's one way of doing things in a more flexible manner. ←
14:53:18 <manu> ivan: Sounds dangerous, but I don't see any other way.
Ivan Herman: Sounds dangerous, but I don't see any other way. ←
14:53:36 <manu> shane: I wouldn't mind having a default profile specified.
Shane McCarron: I wouldn't mind having a default profile specified. ←
14:53:48 <manu> shane: We already encourage processors to cache profiles.
Shane McCarron: We already encourage processors to cache profiles. ←
14:55:13 <manu> toby: keywords could conceptually be a profile, but one that's hard-coded into XHTML+RDFa processors.
Toby Inkster: keywords could conceptually be a profile, but one that's hard-coded into XHTML+RDFa processors. ←
14:56:09 <manu> shane: I'd be okay with it being hardcoded... but in XHTML modularization, we make the commitment, we won't change a module without changing its URI
Shane McCarron: I'd be okay with it being hardcoded... but in XHTML modularization, we make the commitment, we won't change a module without changing its URI ←
14:56:16 <manu> q+
q+ ←
14:56:26 <manu> ack ivan
ack ivan ←
14:58:27 <manu> manu: Why aren't we depending on RDFa Profile mechanism? We should depend on it.
Manu Sporny: Why aren't we depending on RDFa Profile mechanism? We should depend on it. ←
14:58:42 <manu> shane: Going back to the issue at hand.
Shane McCarron: Going back to the issue at hand. ←
14:58:57 <manu> shane: We have to say that generated terms are case-sensitive
Shane McCarron: We have to say that generated terms are case-sensitive ←
15:00:29 <manu> q+ to end the telco
q+ to end the telco ←
15:00:52 <Zakim> -Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven ←
15:01:39 <tinkster> I think including a default @vocab, even for HTML and XHTML will result in lots of junk triples. We have to share @rel/@rev space with microformats, JS libraries, etc.
Toby Inkster: I think including a default @vocab, even for HTML and XHTML will result in lots of junk triples. We have to share @rel/@rev space with microformats, JS libraries, etc. ←
15:02:44 <manu> PROPOSAL: For terms in the default vocabulary, comparison should be performed in a case-insensitive manner when determining whether or not to generate a triple.
PROPOSED: For terms in the default vocabulary, comparison should be performed in a case-insensitive manner when determining whether or not to generate a triple. ←
15:03:04 <manu> PROPOSAL: For terms in the XHTML/HTML vocabulary, comparison should be performed in a case-insensitive manner when determining whether or not to generate a triple.
PROPOSED: For terms in the XHTML/HTML vocabulary, comparison should be performed in a case-insensitive manner when determining whether or not to generate a triple. ←
15:03:13 <tinkster> +1
Toby Inkster: +1 ←
15:03:16 <ShaneM> -1
Shane McCarron: -1 ←
15:03:30 <manu> shane: I'm not comfortable with the state of the current discussion - we should slow down and discuss this more.
Shane McCarron: I'm not comfortable with the state of the current discussion - we should slow down and discuss this more. ←
15:03:41 <tinkster> (this is already the case in RDFa 1.0, as an errata)
Toby Inkster: (this is already the case in RDFa 1.0, as an errata) ←
15:04:13 <Zakim> -ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←
15:04:16 <ivan> zakim, drop me
Ivan Herman: zakim, drop me ←
15:04:16 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan is being disconnected ←
15:04:18 <Zakim> -tinkster
Zakim IRC Bot: -tinkster ←
15:04:18 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
15:04:18 <Zakim> -Manu
Zakim IRC Bot: -Manu ←
15:04:19 <Zakim> -Knud?
Zakim IRC Bot: -Knud? ←
15:04:19 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended ←
15:04:21 <Zakim> Attendees were [IPcaller], ShaneM, tinkster, Ivan, Steven, +3539149aaaa, Manu, Knud?
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were [IPcaller], ShaneM, tinkster, Ivan, Steven, +3539149aaaa, Manu, Knud? ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2010-07-15 15:34:15 UTC by 'msporny', comments: 'Minor fixups and elaborations on things I missed while scribing.'