13:51:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-rdfa-irc ←
13:51:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:52:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
13:52:00 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes ←
13:52:01 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
13:52:01 <trackbot> Date: 04 October 2012
13:59:34 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
13:59:43 <Zakim> +??P10
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P10 ←
13:59:47 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P10
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P10 ←
13:59:47 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
14:00:12 <Zakim> +ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +ivan ←
14:02:32 <Steven> zakim, who is on the call?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:02:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu1, ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see manu1, ivan ←
14:03:24 <Zakim> +??P38
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P38 ←
14:03:26 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P38
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P38 ←
14:03:28 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P38
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P38 ←
14:03:45 <Zakim> +??P41
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P41 ←
14:03:53 <Steven> zakim, who is on the phone?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:04:00 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
14:04:05 <Zakim> +Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven ←
14:04:08 <Zakim> sorry, niklasl, I do not see a party named '??P38'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, niklasl, I do not see a party named '??P38' ←
14:04:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu1, ivan, gkellogg, ??P41, Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see manu1, ivan, gkellogg, ??P41, Steven ←
14:04:34 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P41
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P41 ←
14:04:59 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl; got it ←
14:05:25 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Oct/0000.html
14:05:57 <manu1> scribenick: niklasl
(Scribe set to Niklas Lindström)
14:06:20 <niklasl> manu: we need to add the rdf:HTML topic to the agenda
Manu Sporny: we need to add the rdf:HTML topic to the agenda ←
14:06:25 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-126: Can xmlns: be reported as a warning?
14:06:31 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/126
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/126 ←
14:07:22 <niklasl> manu: Mike Smith has informed us that the validator w3c uses cannot even detect use of xmlns declarations
Manu Sporny: Mike Smith has informed us that the validator w3c uses cannot even detect use of xmlns declarations ←
14:07:31 <Steven> Don't design the spec around bugs in software
Steven Pemberton: Don't design the spec around bugs in software ←
14:08:23 <niklasl> … so the question is if conformance validators can report use of xmlns in HTML5 as an error
… so the question is if conformance validators can report use of xmlns in HTML5 as an error ←
14:09:03 <niklasl> … what kinds of attribute use are illegal and "dropped" in html5?
… what kinds of attribute use are illegal and "dropped" in html5? ←
14:09:25 <niklasl> manu: I don't see a big issue in doing that
Manu Sporny: I don't see a big issue in doing that ←
14:10:01 <niklasl> ivan: I don't mind that the validator raise that. My question is whether RDFa processors should raise an error in general for this (in html5)?
Ivan Herman: I don't mind that the validator raise that. My question is whether RDFa processors should raise an error in general for this (in html5)? ←
14:10:36 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
14:10:41 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
14:10:46 <niklasl> manu: we have a warning about that, it should be clearly noted in the spec.. But a processor should be able to use it if it can
Manu Sporny: we have a warning about that, it should be clearly noted in the spec.. But a processor should be able to use it if it can ←
14:11:19 <niklasl> gregg: isn't the difference between warning an error in practice just different types of warnings?
Gregg Kellogg: isn't the difference between warning an error in practice just different types of messages? ←
14:11:29 <niklasl> s/warnings/messages/
14:11:58 <niklasl> steven: this isn't about processors, just about conformance checkers
Steven Pemberton: this isn't about processors, just about conformance checkers ←
14:12:14 <niklasl> manu: so can we have errors that doesn't stop processors?
Manu Sporny: so can we have errors that doesn't stop processors? ←
14:13:01 <niklasl> gregg: in general, I consider errors to mean that if the processors doesn't stop, it indicates that something strange may result
Gregg Kellogg: in general, I consider errors to mean that if the processors doesn't stop, it indicates that something strange may result ←
14:13:53 <niklasl> ivan: in this case, the logical case is to issue a warning in a processor, but use the value (according to core)
Ivan Herman: in this case, the logical case is to issue a warning in a processor, but use the value (according to core) ←
14:15:06 <niklasl> gregg: a processor using a conforming html5 processor cannot see the erroneous xmlns usage at all, so it cannot report anything
Gregg Kellogg: a processor using a conforming html5 processor cannot see the erroneous xmlns usage at all, so it cannot report anything ←
14:16:20 <niklasl> steven: I think it would be a bad idea to issue an error in a conformance checker for something that's not an error
Steven Pemberton: I think it would be a bad idea to issue an error in a conformance checker for something that's not an error ←
14:16:45 <niklasl> manu: I think the requirement is to say something stronger than a warning
Manu Sporny: I think the requirement is to say something stronger than a warning ←
14:16:53 <niklasl> ivan: validators MAY issue an error
Ivan Herman: validators MAY issue an error ←
14:18:26 <Zakim> + +1.612.217.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.612.217.aaaa ←
14:18:34 <ShaneM> zakim, I am aaaa
Shane McCarron: zakim, I am aaaa ←
14:18:34 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it ←
14:22:00 <gkellogg> zakim, who's making noise?
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, who's making noise? ←
14:22:10 <Zakim> gkellogg, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: manu1 (9%), ivan (4%), Steven (65%)
Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: manu1 (9%), ivan (4%), Steven (65%) ←
14:23:12 <niklasl> steven: can we say this in a way to make it clear that conformance checker may report it as an error, but it's not *actually* an error...
Steven Pemberton: can we say this in a way to make it clear that conformance checker may report it as an error, but it's not *actually* an error... ←
14:23:19 <niklasl> ivan: in html5, it is an error
Ivan Herman: in html5, it is an error ←
14:23:48 <niklasl> … xmlns is not an unknown thing in html5, it's a special, not allowed thing
… xmlns is not an unknown thing in html5, it's a special, not allowed thing ←
14:26:55 <manu1> PROPOSAL: When an RDFa validator is processing an HTML5 document, it MAY report the use of xmlns: as an error. When an RDFa processor is processing an HTML5 document it MAY report the use of xmlns: as a warning.
PROPOSED: When an RDFa validator is processing an HTML5 document, it MAY report the use of xmlns: as an error. When an RDFa processor is processing an HTML5 document it MAY report the use of xmlns: as a warning. ←
14:27:02 <manu1> HTML5 spec: If the XML API doesn't support attributes in no namespace that are named "xmlns", attributes whose names start with "xmlns:", or attributes in the XMLNS namespace, then the tool may drop such attributes.
Manu Sporny: HTML5 spec: If the XML API doesn't support attributes in no namespace that are named "xmlns", attributes whose names start with "xmlns:", or attributes in the XMLNS namespace, then the tool may drop such attributes. ←
14:30:31 <manu1> In the HTML syntax, namespace prefixes and namespace declarations do not have the same effect as in XML. For instance, the colon has no special meaning in HTML element names.
Manu Sporny: In the HTML syntax, namespace prefixes and namespace declarations do not have the same effect as in XML. For instance, the colon has no special meaning in HTML element names. ←
14:34:28 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
14:34:41 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-139: XHTML5 processing specifically excludes the use of xml:base
14:34:47 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/139
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/139 ←
14:34:49 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
14:35:10 <niklasl> gregg: we have conformance tests for this in the test suite
Gregg Kellogg: we have conformance tests for this in the test suite ←
14:36:03 <niklasl> … HTML IDL interfaces use this
… HTML IDL interfaces use this ←
14:36:21 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:36:25 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:36:33 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:36:39 <manu1> PROPOSAL: XHTML5+RDFa 1.1 MUST honor the use of xml:base to set the base URL of the document.
PROPOSED: XHTML5+RDFa 1.1 MUST honor the use of xml:base to set the base URL of the document. ←
14:36:42 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:36:43 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
14:36:44 <niklasl> niklasl: +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:36:58 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:37:04 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:37:08 <manu1> RESOLVED: XHTML5+RDFa 1.1 MUST honor the use of xml:base to set the base URL of the document.
RESOLVED: XHTML5+RDFa 1.1 MUST honor the use of xml:base to set the base URL of the document. ←
14:37:25 <Zakim> -Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven ←
14:37:26 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-135: RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values
14:37:33 <manu1> ISSUE-135 - https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/135
Manu Sporny: ISSUE-135 - https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/135 ←
14:38:14 <niklasl> .. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Sep/0008.html
.. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Sep/0008.html ←
14:38:26 <niklasl> … http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Sep/0009.html, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Sep/0010.html
… http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Sep/0009.html, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Sep/0010.html ←
14:40:46 <niklasl> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2012-05-10#resolution_1
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2012-05-10#resolution_1 ←
14:41:01 <niklasl> "If @property and @rel/@rev are on the same elements, the non-CURIE and non-URI @rel/@rev values are ignored. If, after this, the value of @rel/@rev becomes empty, then the then the processor must act as if the attribute is not present."
"If @property and @rel/@rev are on the same elements, the non-CURIE and non-URI @rel/@rev values are ignored. If, after this, the value of @rel/@rev becomes empty, then the then the processor must act as if the attribute is not present." ←
14:42:20 <manu1> PROPOSAL: If @property and @rel/@rev are on the same elements, the non-CURIE and non-URI @rel/@rev values are ignored. If, after this, the value of @rel/@rev becomes empty, then the then the processor must act as if the attribute is not present.
PROPOSED: If @property and @rel/@rev are on the same elements, the non-CURIE and non-URI @rel/@rev values are ignored. If, after this, the value of @rel/@rev becomes empty, then the then the processor must act as if the attribute is not present. ←
14:42:32 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:42:33 <manu1> +0.5
Manu Sporny: +0.5 ←
14:42:34 <niklasl> niklasl: +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:42:38 <gkellogg> +0.5
Gregg Kellogg: +0.5 ←
14:43:07 <manu1> RESOLVED: If @property and @rel/@rev are on the same elements, the non-CURIE and non-URI @rel/@rev values are ignored. If, after this, the value of @rel/@rev becomes empty, then the then the processor must act as if the attribute is not present.
RESOLVED: If @property and @rel/@rev are on the same elements, the non-CURIE and non-URI @rel/@rev values are ignored. If, after this, the value of @rel/@rev becomes empty, then the then the processor must act as if the attribute is not present. ←
14:44:37 <manu1> niklasl: When the tokens in @rel only contain non-CURIE or non-URI values (there are no terms in HTML5+RDFa), @property overrides @rel.
Niklas Lindström: When the tokens in @rel only contain non-CURIE or non-URI values (there are no terms in HTML5+RDFa), @property overrides @rel. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:45:57 <ShaneM> the URI for the 'term' production in RDFa Core is http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#P_term
Shane McCarron: the URI for the 'term' production in RDFa Core is http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#P_term ←
14:46:11 <manu1> niklasl: When @rel and @property was used together, they used CURIEs, so we're okay there. This is to handle the general case of when @vocab comes in conflict with @rel/@property. There is no way to make everybody happy, this is the closest we could get.
Niklas Lindström: When @rel and @property was used together, they used CURIEs, so we're okay there. This is to handle the general case of when @vocab comes in conflict with @rel/@property. There is no way to make everybody happy, this is the closest we could get. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:46:55 <niklasl> gregg: the RDF 1.1 working group has added the datatype rdf:HTML.
Gregg Kellogg: the RDF 1.1 working group has added the datatype rdf:HTML. ←
14:46:57 <manu1> Topic: Addition of rdf:HTML datatype to RDFa
14:47:07 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:47:14 <niklasl> … it's very much like rdf:XMLLiteral, without the exclusive XML canonicalization
… it's very much like rdf:XMLLiteral, without the exclusive XML canonicalization ←
14:47:48 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:47:48 <niklasl> … we should support this. If we don't, we'd diverge from the RDF 1.1 concepts, for a feature very much intended for (good for) RDFa
… we should support this. If we don't, we'd diverge from the RDF 1.1 concepts, for a feature very much intended for (good for) RDFa ←
14:48:33 <gkellogg> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-html
Gregg Kellogg: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-html ←
14:48:34 <niklasl> ivan: two things of interest in new RDF concepts. On the XMLLiteral side, there is now much clearer language on that.
Ivan Herman: two things of interest in new RDF concepts. On the XMLLiteral side, there is now much clearer language on that. ←
14:49:11 <niklasl> … and indeed, the rdf:HTML literal type.
… and indeed, the rdf:HTML literal type. ←
14:49:28 <niklasl> … the literal is required to be valid HTML, which is much more liberal
… the literal is required to be valid HTML, which is much more liberal ←
14:50:05 <niklasl> … but we have a process issue. It's possible that RDFa in HTML5 would become a rec *before* RDF 1.1
… but we have a process issue. It's possible that RDFa in HTML5 would become a rec *before* RDF 1.1 ←
14:50:22 <niklasl> … so we may not be able to have a formal reference in the spec
… so we may not be able to have a formal reference in the spec ←
14:50:49 <niklasl> .. But we should add an informal section encouraging RDFa processors to implement handling of rdf:HTML literals
.. But we should add an informal section encouraging RDFa processors to implement handling of rdf:HTML literals ←
14:51:15 <niklasl> .. I (and Gregg?) have already implemented this
.. I (and Gregg?) have already implemented this ←
14:51:42 <niklasl> gregg: I've implemented this. There are no public test cases yet.
Gregg Kellogg: I've implemented this. There are no public test cases yet. ←
14:52:53 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Support the the rdf:HTML datatype in HTML+RDFa 1.1 (non-normatively for the purposes of ensuring that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not blocked from REC by RDF Concepts).
PROPOSED: Support the the rdf:HTML datatype in HTML+RDFa 1.1 (non-normatively for the purposes of ensuring that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not blocked from REC by RDF Concepts). ←
14:52:59 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
14:52:59 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:53:00 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:53:00 <niklasl> niklasl: +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:53:03 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:53:13 <manu1> RESOLVED: Support the the rdf:HTML datatype in HTML+RDFa 1.1 (non-normatively for the purposes of ensuring that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not blocked from REC by RDF Concepts).
RESOLVED: Support the the rdf:HTML datatype in HTML+RDFa 1.1 (non-normatively for the purposes of ensuring that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not blocked from REC by RDF Concepts). ←
14:55:42 <manu1> Topic: HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec
14:56:01 <Zakim> -ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -ivan ←
14:56:46 <manu1> Manu: We're in good shape, as far as the spec is concerned, we'll get verification from Mike Smith, I'll update the spec and push out a new working draft (with the approval of the group)
Manu Sporny: We're in good shape, as far as the spec is concerned, we'll get verification from Mike Smith, I'll update the spec and push out a new working draft (with the approval of the group) [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2012-10-04 15:21:31 UTC by 'msporny', comments: 'Minor fix-ups before publication.'