IRC log of rdfa on 2012-02-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:34:11 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:34:11 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:34:13 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:34:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:34:15 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 7332
14:34:15 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 26 minutes
14:34:16 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
14:34:16 [trackbot]
Date: 23 February 2012
14:54:38 [Steven]
Steven has joined #rdfa
14:57:12 [niklasl]
niklasl has joined #rdfa
14:58:01 [Zakim]
SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:58:08 [Zakim]
14:58:11 [niklasl]
zakim, I am ??P43
14:58:11 [Zakim]
+niklasl; got it
15:00:10 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdfa
15:00:41 [Zakim]
15:00:43 [MacTed]
so next call is today...
15:00:46 [gkellogg]
zakim, I am ??P58
15:00:46 [Zakim]
+gkellogg; got it
15:01:14 [Zakim]
15:01:17 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:01:41 [manu1]
zakim, I am ??P62
15:01:42 [Zakim]
+manu1; got it
15:02:27 [manu1]
Scribe: manu1
15:02:52 [manu1]
Manu: Any updates or changes to the Agenda?
15:03:12 [Zakim]
15:03:18 [Zakim]
15:03:19 [ShaneM]
zakim, ??P67 is ShaneM
15:03:19 [Zakim]
+ShaneM; got it
15:03:53 [manu1]
Niklasl: Should we put Item #1 later in the Agenda?
15:05:17 [scor]
scor has joined #rdfa
15:05:20 [MacTed]
agenda URI?
15:05:33 [Zakim]
15:05:43 [Zakim]
15:05:46 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:05:48 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:05:51 [manu1]
Manu: Yes, we can, but we have to get through all of these issues anyway.
15:05:58 [manu1]
15:06:03 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:06:13 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:06:36 [manu1]
Topic: ISSUE-131: @href overrides @content
15:06:44 [manu1]
15:07:32 [niklasl]
15:07:56 [manu1]
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 [manu1]
Niklas: There is an issue with b/c in either case...
15:08:10 [manu1]
ack niklasl
15:09:09 [manu1]
Niklas: I think that @property binds to @href in RDFa 1.0
15:09:53 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:09:54 [gkellogg]
15:10:14 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:10:16 [Zakim]
15:10:19 [manu1]
Manu: I disagree, I don't think we meant this to happen at all...
15:10:45 [ivan]
15:11:45 [manu1]
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 [gkellogg]
q+ My processor has the same result in RDFa 1.0
15:12:13 [manu1]
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 [manu1]
ack ivan
15:13:07 [manu1]
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 [manu1]
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 [manu1]
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 [niklasl]
15:14:08 [gkellogg]
15:14:10 [manu1]
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 [manu1]
ack niklasl
15:15:02 [manu1]
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 [manu1]
Ivan: Yes, that's what happens, though - @href becomes the subject, though.
15:15:42 [ivan]
15:15:43 [manu1]
ack gkellogg
15:16:17 [manu1]
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 [manu1]
gkellogg: When you do markup, you need to test to make sure you're getting the right results.
15:16:37 [manu1]
ack ivan
15:17:27 [manu1]
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 [manu1]
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 [niklasl]
.. (these advice of Ivan's are also captured in this mail: )
15:18:31 [manu1]
Ivan: It's effectively spaghetti programming w/ RDFa - we should document these things.
15:19:50 [niklasl]
15:20:43 [niklasl]
<a property="email" href="" datatype=""></a>
15:20:45 [niklasl]
<">> schema:email <> .
15:21:40 [niklasl]
in "7.5 Sequence", step 5.
15:21:42 [ShaneM]
q+ to ask about @datatype and @property
15:22:04 [manu1]
ack niklasl
15:22:26 [gkellogg]
5.1 If the current element contains the @property attribute, but does not contain either the @content or @datatype attributes, then
15:22:31 [manu1]
Ivan: In RDFa 1.1, the object should be ""
15:23:17 [manu1]
ack shaneM
15:23:17 [Zakim]
ShaneM, you wanted to ask about @datatype and @property
15:24:31 [niklasl]
15:24:38 [manu1]
Manu: My understanding was that we only bind @property to @href when those are the /only/ RDFa attribute on the element.
15:24:44 [manu1]
Ivan: That is correct... maybe this is a spec bug.
15:24:55 [manu1]
ack niklasl
15:25:03 [niklasl]
<a property="email" href="" lang=""></a>