13:56:42 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 13:56:42 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/13-rdfa-irc 13:57:10 trackbot, setup meeting 13:57:10 Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, setup meeting'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 13:57:26 trackbot, prepare telecon 13:57:28 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:57:30 Zakim, this will be 7332 13:57:30 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes 13:57:31 Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference 13:57:31 Date: 13 May 2010 13:57:47 Chair: Manu Sporny 13:58:03 tinkster1 has joined #rdfa 13:58:46 Present: Manu, Ivan, Toby, Shane 13:58:53 Regrets: Ben, Steven, Benjamin, Mark 13:59:54 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 14:00:01 + +1.734.995.aaaa 14:00:13 zakim, aaaa is manu 14:00:13 +manu; got it 14:00:15 zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:00:15 ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:00:16 +Ivan 14:01:14 + +0785583aabb 14:01:24 zakim, aabb is me 14:01:24 +tinkster; got it 14:02:14 +ShaneM 14:02:18 zakim, mute me 14:02:18 tinkster should now be muted 14:02:27 scribenick: ivan 14:04:25 zakim, unmute me 14:04:25 tinkster should no longer be muted 14:08:59 Topic: possible new issues from mailing list 14:09:05 manu: ivan contacted me off line 14:09:12 ... two possible issues 14:09:16 - not-parsing if @profile cannot be accessed (Jeni's mail) 14:09:18 - do we need an error reporting mechanism in rdfa 14:09:45 manu: anybody who thinks we should not turn these into issues? 14:09:58 manu: any other issues that we missed? 14:10:22 tinkster: not at the moment 14:10:31 manu: we have to document all these well 14:10:46 ... if anybody things of any other issues then send a mail to the mailing list 14:10:52 ... i will add those two after the call 14:15:29 topic: review rdfa dom api progress 14:15:44 manu: mark sent a mail to the list that he does not have anything for us yet 14:16:03 ... toby what are your thoughts on the progress? 14:16:11 tinkster: i must admit I did not look at it last week... 14:16:17 manu: nothing changed 14:16:33 tinkster: it is fragmented between a triple space and a resource space apis 14:16:44 ... would be good to have a combined version of those two 14:16:57 manu: in an extended call last week this is the direction we have decided to go to 14:17:08 ... my concern is that the document has not progressed in the past few weeks 14:17:22 ... i will volunteer to integerate mark's changes into the dom api 14:17:29 q+ 14:17:34 ack ivan 14:17:37 ivan: i agree, 14:17:53 Ivan: We have to move on - the writing needs to be in one document, they need to be merged 14:17:56 +[MIT528] 14:18:00 Ivan: This has been dragging on for way too long. 14:18:58 dongmei has joined #rdfa 14:19:12 ShaneM: I am abstaining on that 14:19:25 manu: meaning we should really move forwards? 14:20:35 manu: I will go ahead 14:20:58 tinkster: if you look at triples, the different views are not that disconnected 14:21:12 manu: everyone agrees that this is a good thing to have 14:21:17 ... i will start this 14:21:25 topic: issue 22 discussions 14:21:49 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/22 14:22:31 manu: the problem is that in rdfa1.0 we say that prefixes are case sensitive 14:22:38 ShaneM: we just defer to xmlns 14:22:44 ... and xmlns is case sensitive 14:23:04 manu: in rdfa1.1 i think what we want to say that prefixes must be converted to lowercase 14:23:09 ShaneM: and it says that 14:23:19 ... and we put it in the errate 14:23:23 s/errate/errata/ 14:23:36 manu: previously we said use lower case 14:23:45 ... now we say convert it 14:23:56 Section 4.1. Document Conformance - In the future it is possible that RDFa will also be defined in the context of HTML. Consequently document authors SHOULD use lower-case prefix names in order to be compatible with current and potential future processors. 14:24:02 q+ 14:24:12 ack ivan 14:24:23 Ivan: We're still talking about prefixes and not terms, correct? 14:24:51 Ivan: Do we have a separate issue with terms? 14:24:56 Manu: I don't think this would apply to terms. 14:25:43 ivan: what about HTML5? 14:26:24 in html5, rel and rev values are case-insensitive, unless they contain a colon. 14:26:44 manu: why is that? 14:27:11 manu: from what I remember, browsers preserve case for @rel and @rev 14:27:36 ... we could say that terms that are not in the reserved list (license, etc) are case sensitive 14:28:20 trackbot, create issue Case-sensitive terms in HTML5 14:28:20 Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, create issue Case-sensitive terms in HTML5'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 14:28:41 trackbot, ISSUE: Case-sensitive terms in HTML5 14:28:41 Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, ISSUE: Case-sensitive terms in HTML5'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 14:28:51 ISSUE: Case-sensitive terms in HTML5 14:28:51 Created ISSUE-24 - Case-sensitive terms in HTML5 ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/24/edit . 14:29:18 manu: for xmlns we should have case sensitivity 14:29:26 ... as well as for @prefix 14:29:53 PROPOSAL: For prefixes defined via xmlns: and @prefix, the prefix text should be converted to lowercase by the RDFa Processor. 14:30:04 +1 14:30:04 +1 14:30:06 +1 14:30:08 +0 14:30:31 RESOLVED: For prefixes defined via xmlns: and @prefix, the prefix text should be converted to lowercase by the RDFa Processor. 14:30:34 Here is what the spec says now: Mappings are defined via @prefix. For backward compatibility, some Host Languages may also permit the definition of mappings via @xmlns. In this case, the value to be mapped is set by the XML namespace prefix, and the value to map is the value of the attribute — a URI. Regardless of how the mapping is declared, the value to be mapped must be converted to l 14:31:18 lower case, and the URI is not processed in any way; in particular if it is a relative path it is not resolved against the current base. Authors should not use relative paths as the URI. 14:31:27 manu: note on the vote that toby is concerned about backward compatibility issue 14:31:32 Toby: I'm concerned about the backwards incompatible change, but could go either way on it. 14:31:42 topic: issue 19 14:31:59 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/19 14:32:09 manu: this is another backward incompatible changes 14:32:33 ... by default rdfa1.0 generates xml literal if there is an element within the element being processed 14:33:02 ... based on the markup that we have seen lots of people are generating xml literals when they intend plain literal 14:33:51 tinkster: there are two related issues (1) do we want to generate xml literals by default (2) do we recursively go down 14:34:01 manu: we have split those into two issues 14:34:10 tinkster: i do not have any strong opinion, 14:34:18 ... it is one thing we should consider 14:35:16 Ivan: This is the one thing that we listed in the charter, so there seems to be consensus that we wanted to address this. 14:35:41 ShaneM: i do not have a problem with this, we should have fixed it in the errata 14:36:21 manu: the general idea is that then people are adding datatypes they generally do not mark up markup 14:36:34 .... i do not think the vast majority of people will try to expose markup on their pages 14:36:46 ... and that is where people would use xml literal in their markup 14:36:56 ... there is stuff like mathml 14:36:59 ... or svg 14:37:03 q+ 14:37:13 ... chemical compounds, etc 14:37:15 ack ivan 14:37:47 Ivan: Just to be fair - I see one area where people might want to do that, and that might be multi-lingual things. 14:37:57 Ivan: That being said, that's not a majority use case. 14:38:18 Manu: So, Ruby markup? 14:38:55 Manu: and what we're saying is you can still do that, but you have to do it explicitly datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral" 14:39:09 Toby: There are plenty of use cases, just not as common as Plain Literals. 14:39:15 tinkster: there are use cases, but just not as common 14:40:05 PROPOSAL: By default RDFa 1.1 should generate Plain Literals even when there are elements in a subtree, unless datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral" is specified. 14:40:25 Toby: What about datatype="xml" 14:40:56 +1 14:40:57 +1 14:41:01 +1 14:41:12 +1 14:41:14 RESOLVED: By default RDFa 1.1 should generate Plain Literals even when there are elements in a subtree, unless datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral" is specified. 14:41:20 RESOLVED: By default RDFa 1.1 should generate Plain Literals even when there are elements in a subtree, unless datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral" is specified. 14:41:26 q+ 14:41:34 ack ivan 14:41:52 Ivan: There is a more general thing that we started to discuss - do we have an open issue on default vocabularies and terms? 14:42:31 Manu: This one http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/11 ? 14:42:52 Ivan: Not the same issue - Should we have default terms in RDFa Core? 14:43:52 We also need to consider whether or not there would be default terms in RDFa Core. Things like datatype="xml" instead of needing to specify datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral". 14:44:10 (added to issue 11) 14:44:14 topic: issue 10 14:44:16 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/10 14:44:31 ShaneM: why is this an issue 14:44:42 manu: it is in our queue 14:44:43 This specification also adds the lang attribute to the I18N attribute collection as defined in [XHTML-MODULARIZATION11-2e]. The lang attribute is defined in [HTML401]. When this attribute and the xml:lang attribute are specified on the same element, the xml:lang attribute takes precedence. When both lang and xml:lang are specified on the same element, they should have the same value. 14:45:10 ShaneM: this is already in xhtml+rdfa 14:45:21 ... and we should be sure that this is the same as in html5 14:45:23 q+ 14:45:50 ack ivan 14:46:16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Feb/0092.html 14:46:58 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-lang-and-xml:lang-attributes 14:48:47 q+ 14:49:02 Manu: I don't think the HTML5 spec says this... it says ignore xml:lang 14:50:47 manu: the problem is when somebody uses both xml:lang and lang with different values, if run as xhtml and in html5 the generated triples will be different 14:50:54 ... is this a problem? 14:51:03 ... it is a corner corner case 14:51:24 ... one way is to put a strong warning in the xhtml+rdfa text about the dangers 14:51:47 ... ie, a proposed way forward is to defer to the language 14:51:56 ... in xml and xhtml what counts is xml:lang 14:52:01 ... in html5 it is lang 14:52:02 q+ 14:52:06 ack ivan 14:52:34 ShaneM: we do not know what mode we are in 14:52:41 manu: we have version 14:52:47 ... but people do not want version 14:52:53 ... it is a should 14:52:58 q_ 14:52:59 q+ 14:53:17 ack ivan 14:53:20 ShaneM: in the absence of an announcement mechanism I would object 14:53:28 q+ 14:55:00 Ivan: My parser figures out what mode to be in by looking at the document type - text/html means HTML5 mode 14:55:12 ack tinkster 14:55:14 q+ to talk about media type 14:55:25 q- 14:55:27 tinkster: the annoucement mechanism might be media type 14:55:39 ShaneM: not all processors have access to the document type 14:56:31 tinkster: is there a way for javascript to find out the content type? 14:56:39 ShaneM: not in a portable way:-9 14:56:46 s/:-9/:-(/ 14:57:43 ShaneM: there is a hack, I create an element in the dom in lower case then I retrieve and if this is lower case 14:58:05 ShaneM: i am not against the resolution, but we do have a problem 14:58:10 How about requiring that the values are the same if both are specified? 14:58:12 manu: this is really really a corner case 14:58:41 ShaneM, html5 already does. 14:58:51 ... we can say that if you want portability, use both cases and really really not use different 14:59:32 ShaneM: I have always said we do not define the processing rules for invalid content 14:59:46 PROPOSAL: RDFa 1.1 defers to the Host Language to determine the language of the node. 14:59:57 +1 14:59:58 +1 15:00:03 +1 15:00:19 PROPOSAL: RDFa Core 1.1 defers to the Host Language to determine the language of the node. 15:00:22 +1 15:00:22 +1 15:00:24 +1 15:00:24 +1 15:00:36 RESOLVED: RDFa Core 1.1 defers to the Host Language to determine the language of the node. 15:01:16 When both lang and xml:lang are specified on the same element, they MUST have the same value. 15:01:27 PROPOSAL: When both lang and xml:lang are specified on the same element, they MUST have the same value. 15:01:32 +1 15:01:34 +1 15:01:40 +1 15:01:46 Manu: That means that it is a validation error if they are not the same. 15:01:48 +0 : this should not be our responsibility 15:04:21 RESOLVED: When both lang and xml:lang are specified on the same element, they MUST have the same value 15:04:47 -ShaneM 15:04:52 -tinkster 15:04:54 zakim, drop me 15:04:54 Ivan is being disconnected 15:04:54 -Ivan 15:04:56 -[MIT528] 15:04:56 -manu 15:04:56 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended 15:04:59 Attendees were +1.734.995.aaaa, manu, Ivan, +0785583aabb, tinkster, ShaneM, [MIT528] 15:31:42 zakim, bye 15:31:42 Zakim has left #rdfa 15:31:44 rrsagent, bye 15:31:44 I see no action items