14:34:11 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 14:34:11 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-rdfa-irc 14:34:13 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:34:13 Zakim has joined #rdfa 14:34:15 Zakim, this will be 7332 14:34:15 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 26 minutes 14:34:16 Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference 14:34:16 Date: 23 February 2012 14:54:38 Steven has joined #rdfa 14:57:12 niklasl has joined #rdfa 14:58:01 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 14:58:08 +??P43 14:58:11 zakim, I am ??P43 14:58:11 +niklasl; got it 15:00:10 danbri has joined #rdfa 15:00:41 +??P58 15:00:43 so next call is today... 15:00:46 zakim, I am ??P58 15:00:46 +gkellogg; got it 15:01:14 +??P62 15:01:17 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 15:01:41 zakim, I am ??P62 15:01:42 +manu1; got it 15:02:27 Scribe: manu1 15:02:52 Manu: Any updates or changes to the Agenda? 15:03:12 +??P67 15:03:18 +scor 15:03:19 zakim, ??P67 is ShaneM 15:03:19 +ShaneM; got it 15:03:53 Niklasl: Should we put Item #1 later in the Agenda? 15:05:17 scor has joined #rdfa 15:05:20 agenda URI? 15:05:33 +Steven 15:05:43 +OpenLink_Software 15:05:46 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:05:48 Zakim, mute me 15:05:51 Manu: Yes, we can, but we have to get through all of these issues anyway. 15:05:58 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Feb/0058.html 15:06:03 +MacTed; got it 15:06:13 MacTed should now be muted 15:06:36 Topic: ISSUE-131: @href overrides @content 15:06:44 https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/131 15:07:32 q+ 15:07:56 Manu: I think this was a mistake - we never meant @property to bind to @href when @content is on the same element. 15:08:08 Niklas: There is an issue with b/c in either case... 15:08:10 ack niklasl 15:09:09 Niklas: I think that @property binds to @href in RDFa 1.0 15:09:53 zakim, dial ivan-voip 15:09:54 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Feb/0046.html 15:10:14 ok, ivan; the call is being made 15:10:16 +Ivan 15:10:19 Manu: I disagree, I don't think we meant this to happen at all... 15:10:45 q+ 15:11:45 Shane: That's correct, in RDFa 1.0, if you have @href, @property and @content on an element - then @href becomes the subject, @property becomes the predicate, and @content becomes the object. 15:12:02 q+ My processor has the same result in RDFa 1.0 15:12:13 Niklas: From what I gather, I don't think we can do anything about this... if @href is present, it becomes both the subject and the object... 15:12:22 ack ivan 15:13:07 Ivan: The point is that that was the behavior of @property in RDFa 1.0 - if there is an attribute in an element which refers to a literal object, then @property switches back to its old self in RDFa 1.0. 15:13:27 Ivan: If there is a content attribute, @property behaves in the same way as it does in RDFa 1.0... @href is the subject, etc. 15:13:53 Ivan: We can be stricter - even if @content and @datatype is on the element, @property behaves like @rel - @datatype can be ignored... that's awkward. 15:14:03 q+ 15:14:08 q+ 15:14:10 Ivan: If we begin to fiddle around with this stuff too much, we could create a huge incompatiability w/ RDFa 1.0 15:14:12 ack niklasl 15:15:02 Niklas: Fiddling w/ this too much opens up bad consequences... if we did this change, the other opposing point of view is that @content would override @href. Combination of @property and @content is more significant. 15:15:32 Ivan: Yes, that's what happens, though - @href becomes the subject, though. 15:15:42 q+ 15:15:43 ack gkellogg 15:16:17 Gregg: The principle of least change is what we should go with here... we can't know what types of things depended on that behavior... 15:16:35 gkellogg: When you do markup, you need to test to make sure you're getting the right results. 15:16:37 ack ivan 15:17:27 Ivan: Something that came out in this discussion - we do have the Primer, it might be worth having some sort of page/document on do's and don'ts. There are combinations that one shouldn't do... this is one of them. 15:18:12 Ivan: There are many ways to put tons of RDFa attributes on an element to generate a ton of triples... but people shouldn't do that... even if it is legal. 15:18:15 .. (these advice of Ivan's are also captured in this mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Feb/0044.html ) 15:18:31 Ivan: It's effectively spaghetti programming w/ RDFa - we should document these things. 15:19:50 q+ 15:20:43 peter@peterkrantz.se 15:20:45 schema:email . 15:21:40 in "7.5 Sequence", step 5. 15:21:42 q+ to ask about @datatype and @property 15:22:04 ack niklasl 15:22:26 5.1 If the current element contains the @property attribute, but does not contain either the @content or @datatype attributes, then 15:22:31 Ivan: In RDFa 1.1, the object should be "peter@peterkrantz.se" 15:23:17 ack shaneM 15:23:17 ShaneM, you wanted to ask about @datatype and @property 15:24:31 q+ 15:24:38 Manu: My understanding was that we only bind @property to @href when those are the /only/ RDFa attribute on the element. 15:24:44 Ivan: That is correct... maybe this is a spec bug. 15:24:55 ack niklasl 15:25:03 peter@peterkrantz.se