13:50:28 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-rdfa-irc ←
13:50:43 <manu> trackbot, start meeting
Manu Sporny: trackbot, start meeting ←
13:50:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:50:48 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
13:50:48 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes ←
13:50:49 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
13:50:49 <trackbot> Date: 15 April 2010
13:51:35 <manu> Present: Ivan, Steven, MarkB, Manu, Benjamin, Knud, Shane
13:51:41 <manu> Regrets: BenA, Toby
13:51:43 <manu> Chair: Manu
13:52:12 <manu> rrsagent, make logs public
Manu Sporny: rrsagent, make logs public ←
13:58:54 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
13:59:01 <Zakim> +Benjamin
Zakim IRC Bot: +Benjamin ←
13:59:38 <Zakim> +??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←
13:59:48 <manu> zakim, I am ??P9
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P9 ←
13:59:48 <Zakim> +manu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu; got it ←
14:00:17 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:00:17 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:00:18 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:01:15 <markbirbeck> zakim, code?
Mark Birbeck: zakim, code? ←
14:01:16 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck ←
14:01:49 <Zakim> +knud
Zakim IRC Bot: +knud ←
14:01:56 <Zakim> +markbirbeck
Zakim IRC Bot: +markbirbeck ←
14:02:21 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
Steven Pemberton: zakim, dial steven-617 ←
14:02:21 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven; the call is being made ←
14:02:22 <Zakim> +Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven ←
14:03:15 <manu> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Apr/0062.html
14:03:31 <Zakim> +ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM ←
14:04:08 <manu> scribenick: ivan
(Scribe set to Ivan Herman)
14:04:42 <ivan> Topic: Resolutions on FPWD Items
14:04:56 <ivan> manu: a couple of resolutions should be on records,
Manu Sporny: a couple of resolutions should be on records, ←
14:05:02 <ivan> ... get the issues closed
... get the issues closed ←
14:05:12 <ivan> ... and have a resolution on getting fpwd-s
... and have a resolution on getting fpwd-s ←
14:05:27 <manu> http://www.doodle.com/uqe9pxru7eu8n7d8
Manu Sporny: http://www.doodle.com/uqe9pxru7eu8n7d8 ←
14:05:28 <ivan> manu: we had a poll that we did not record
Manu Sporny: we had a poll that we did not record ←
14:05:41 <Knud> zakim, mute me
Knud Möller: zakim, mute me ←
14:05:41 <Zakim> knud should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: knud should now be muted ←
14:05:44 <ivan> manu: this covered the four items that had a wide agreement
Manu Sporny: this covered the four items that had a wide agreement ←
14:05:53 <ivan> ... first: supporting of @profiles
... first: supporting of @profiles ←
14:06:13 <ivan> ... looking at it there were 2 against, we covered their reasons
... looking at it there were 2 against, we covered their reasons ←
14:06:21 <ivan> ... we should not rehash that
... we should not rehash that ←
14:06:36 <manu> PROPOSAL: Support the general concept of RDFa Profiles - an external document that specifies keywords for CURIEs.
PROPOSED: Support the general concept of RDFa Profiles - an external document that specifies keywords for CURIEs. ←
14:07:29 <ivan> ivan: +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:07:38 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:07:38 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:07:41 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:07:47 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:07:50 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
14:07:56 <Steven> This is not a vote - it's a straw poll that demonstrates rough consensus among the RDFa WG.
Steven Pemberton: This is not a vote - it's a straw poll that demonstrates rough consensus among the RDFa WG. ←
14:07:57 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:08:09 <manu> RESOLVED: Support the general concept of RDFa Profiles - an external document that specifies keywords for CURIEs.
RESOLVED: Support the general concept of RDFa Profiles - an external document that specifies keywords for CURIEs. ←
14:08:38 <manu> PROPOSAL: Support the concept of having a default prefix mechanism without RDFS resolution.
PROPOSED: Support the concept of having a default prefix mechanism without RDFS resolution. ←
14:08:41 <ivan> ivan: +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:08:50 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:08:50 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:08:51 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:08:55 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:08:59 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
14:09:16 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:09:26 <manu> RESOLVED: Support the concept of having a default prefix mechanism without RDFS resolution.
RESOLVED: Support the concept of having a default prefix mechanism without RDFS resolution. ←
14:10:09 <manu> PROPOSAL: Support expressing the RDFa Profile document in RDFa (for example: rdfa:prefix/rdfa:keyword, or rdfa:alias)
PROPOSED: Support expressing the RDFa Profile document in RDFa (for example: rdfa:prefix/rdfa:keyword, or rdfa:alias) ←
14:10:16 <ivan> ivan: +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:10:18 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:10:19 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:10:23 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:10:32 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:11:12 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:11:13 <markbirbeck> -1
Mark Birbeck: -1 ←
14:12:19 <ivan> steven: mark, do you oppose this proposal?
Steven Pemberton: mark, do you oppose this proposal? ←
14:12:37 <ivan> mark: I would be fine if we changed it to 'one of the possible mechanism would be rdfa'
Mark Birbeck: I would be fine if we changed it to 'one of the possible mechanism would be rdfa' ←
14:12:49 <ivan> ... I think we can still have that discussion
... I think we can still have that discussion ←
14:13:10 <ivan> manu: we had a bit of discussions with that wording and we had a general discussion based on that - we don't want to change the proposal at this point because there is wide agreement to this wording and it could impact FPWD.
Manu Sporny: we had a bit of discussions with that wording and we had a general discussion based on that - we don't want to change the proposal at this point because there is wide agreement to this wording and it could impact FPWD. ←
14:13:22 <ivan> ... looking at the proposal and the +1-s I would resolve it and we can have a discussion at a later stage
... looking at the proposal and the +1-s I would resolve it and we can have a discussion at a later stage ←
14:13:25 <manu> RESOLVED: Support expressing the RDFa Profile document in RDFa (for example: rdfa:prefix/rdfa:keyword, or rdfa:alias)
RESOLVED: Support expressing the RDFa Profile document in RDFa (for example: rdfa:prefix/rdfa:keyword, or rdfa:alias) ←
14:14:12 <manu> PROPOSAL: Provide an alternate mechanism to express mappings that does not depend on xmlns: (for example: @token, @vocab or @map)
PROPOSED: Provide an alternate mechanism to express mappings that does not depend on xmlns: (for example: @token, @vocab or @map) ←
14:14:20 <ivan> ivan: +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:14:25 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:14:26 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:14:29 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:14:32 <Steven> -1
Steven Pemberton: -1 ←
14:14:32 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
14:14:50 <ivan> ivan: same question to steven... does he oppose or can live with it?
Ivan Herman: same question to steven... does he oppose or can live with it? ←
14:15:18 <ivan> steven: I was not sure whether I should say -1 or 0, an alternate means 'as well as'
Steven Pemberton: I was not sure whether I should say -1 or 0, an alternate means 'as well as' ←
14:15:27 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:15:27 <ivan> manu: this is really for languages without @xmlns:
Manu Sporny: this is really for languages without @xmlns: ←
14:15:52 <ivan> ... and whether or not namespaces exist in html5 at the conceptual level is debatable, but the WHATWG folks are claiming so
... and whether or not namespaces exist in html5 at the conceptual level is debatable, but the WHATWG folks are claiming so ←
14:16:03 <ivan> ... the vast majority of our arguments over namespaces and @xmlns: (RDFa doesn't require either) revolved around that
... the vast majority of our arguments over namespaces and @xmlns: (RDFa doesn't require either) revolved around that ←
14:16:14 <ivan> ... we want RDFa to be used in languages that do not have @xmlns: or namespaced elements
... we want RDFa to be used in languages that do not have @xmlns: or namespaced elements ←
14:16:20 <ivan> ... for those languages, @prefix makes more sense than @xmlns:
... for those languages, @prefix makes more sense than @xmlns: ←
14:16:21 <ShaneM> Moreover using xmlns pollutes the namespaces of a parser unnecessarily.
Shane McCarron: Moreover using xmlns pollutes the namespaces of a parser unnecessarily. ←
14:16:40 <ivan> Steven: I do not agree that html5 does not fall into this category
Steven Pemberton: I do not agree that html5 does not fall into this category ←
14:16:43 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
14:16:48 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:17:58 <manu> RESOLVED: Provide an alternate mechanism to express mappings that does not depend on xmlns: (for example: @token, @vocab or @map)
RESOLVED: Provide an alternate mechanism to express mappings that does not depend on xmlns: (for example: @token, @vocab or @map) ←
14:18:12 <ivan> ivan: What about deprecating @xmlns:?
Ivan Herman: What about deprecating @xmlns:? ←
14:18:19 <manu> Topic: Deprecation of @xmlns: in RDFa 1.1
14:18:21 <ivan> ... it is in the current version of RDFa Core
... it is in the current version of RDFa Core ←
14:18:42 <manu> +1 for deprecation of xmlns:
Manu Sporny: +1 for deprecation of xmlns: ←
14:18:49 <Steven> -1 for deprecation
Steven Pemberton: -1 for deprecation ←
14:18:50 <manu> Ivan: I can live with deprecation of xmlns:
Ivan Herman: I can live with deprecation of xmlns: [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:19:08 <manu> Ivan: we need a resolution for this if we are going to have it in RDFa Core 1.1 FPWD
Ivan Herman: we need a resolution for this if we are going to have it in RDFa Core 1.1 FPWD [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:19:16 <ivan> shane: I did this offline, asked Manu, he agreed and we added the text in there
Shane McCarron: I did this offline, asked Manu, he agreed and we added the text in there ←
14:19:32 <ivan> ... I agree that this should be discussed by the WG
... I agree that this should be discussed by the WG ←
14:19:38 <ivan> ... since having two is confusing
... since having two is confusing ←
14:19:53 <ivan> manu: the reason I thought we would be going this direction is because we've had this discussion before in RDFa WG - Whether or not to deprecate xmlns:
Manu Sporny: the reason I thought we would be going this direction is because we've had this discussion before in RDFa WG - Whether or not to deprecate xmlns: ←
14:20:02 <ivan> ... the issue is confusing - having two equal prefixing mechanisms
... the issue is confusing - having two equal prefixing mechanisms ←
14:20:09 <ivan> ... we've also talked about the namespace issues - how RDFa doesn't need namespaces and how using xmlns: confuses a great number of people.
... we've also talked about the namespace issues - how RDFa doesn't need namespaces and how using xmlns: confuses a great number of people. ←
14:20:10 <Steven> I disagree more strongly on this one than the last
Steven Pemberton: I disagree more strongly on this one than the last ←
14:20:20 <ivan> ... If we had known what we know now about the confusion xmlns: creates in regular web developers. Some people still think that RDFa requires namespaces (even though RDFa doesn't require namespaces). Back in RDFa 1.0, when we re-used xmlns:, we would have probably defined a new attribute instead of re-using @xmlns: if we know what we know now (which is impossible)... looks like we'll need to discuss this in much more depth, then.
... If we had known what we know now about the confusion xmlns: creates in regular web developers. Some people still think that RDFa requires namespaces (even though RDFa doesn't require namespaces). Back in RDFa 1.0, when we re-used xmlns:, we would have probably defined a new attribute instead of re-using @xmlns: if we know what we know now (which is impossible)... looks like we'll need to discuss this in much more depth, then. ←
14:20:30 <ivan> steven: I am against deprecating it
Steven Pemberton: I am against deprecating it ←
14:20:30 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:20:44 <ivan> ... I do not like breaking backward compatibility
... I do not like breaking backward compatibility ←
14:20:48 <ivan> manu: it does not break backward compatibility
Manu Sporny: it does not break backward compatibility ←
14:21:01 <ivan> ... deprecation means a strong a signal not to use
... deprecation means a strong a signal not to use ←
14:21:15 <ivan> shane: technically it means it is not removed yet but it can be
Shane McCarron: technically it means it is not removed yet but it can be ←
14:21:31 <manu> ack mark
Manu Sporny: ack mark ←
14:21:36 <ivan> ... steven, if it said 'prefix is preferred, is that fine'?
... steven, if it said 'prefix is preferred, is that fine'? ←
14:21:38 <ivan> steven: yes
Steven Pemberton: yes ←
14:21:46 <ivan> mark: 'deprecated' means there is a decision to remove it in the future
Mark Birbeck: 'deprecated' means there is a decision to remove it in the future ←
14:21:56 <ivan> ... we have to send a strong signal
... we have to send a strong signal ←
14:22:48 <ivan> ... I do not agree that we would have not used xmlns: - done it differently
... I do not agree that we would have not used xmlns: - done it differently ←
14:23:01 <manu> q+ to clarify "we'd do it differently"
Manu Sporny: q+ to clarify "we'd do it differently" ←
14:23:10 <ivan> ... at the time we used what w3c had an emphasis on at the time - xmlns: - now things have changed, not as much of an emphasis on namespaces and xmlns: - we made the right decision in the context of what was going on at the time.
... at the time we used what w3c had an emphasis on at the time - xmlns: - now things have changed, not as much of an emphasis on namespaces and xmlns: - we made the right decision in the context of what was going on at the time. ←
14:23:20 <ShaneM> +1 to marks concern
Shane McCarron: +1 to marks concern ←
14:23:54 <ivan> ack manu
ack manu ←
14:23:54 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to clarify "we'd do it differently"
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to clarify "we'd do it differently" ←
14:23:54 <Steven> +1 to Mark
Steven Pemberton: +1 to Mark ←
14:24:59 <Knud> "xmlns is discouraged"?
Knud Möller: "xmlns is discouraged"? ←
14:25:09 <markbirbeck> +1 to Knud
Mark Birbeck: +1 to Knud ←
14:25:46 <Zakim> -ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←
14:25:47 <Zakim> +ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM ←
14:26:06 <ivan> PROPOSAL: the FPWD should say something like "prefix is preferred" but not explicitly deprecate xmlns
PROPOSED: the FPWD should say something like "prefix is preferred" but not explicitly deprecate xmlns ←
14:26:20 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:26:21 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:26:22 <ivan> ivan: +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:26:28 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:26:31 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:26:31 <Steven> I can live with that
Steven Pemberton: I can live with that ←
14:28:31 <markbirbeck> 0
Mark Birbeck: 0 ←
14:28:35 <ivan> markbirbeck: That doesn't send a very strong message, does it?
Mark Birbeck: That doesn't send a very strong message, does it? ←
14:29:52 <manu> PROPOSAL: Remove mention of "xmlns: is deprecated" from the RDFa Core 1.1 FPWD
PROPOSED: Remove mention of "xmlns: is deprecated" from the RDFa Core 1.1 FPWD ←
14:30:08 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:30:08 <ivan> ivan: +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:30:10 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
14:30:23 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:30:23 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:30:24 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:30:35 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:30:36 <ivan> RESOLVED: Remove mention of "xmlns: is deprecated" from the RDFa Core 1.1 FPWD
RESOLVED: Remove mention of "xmlns: is deprecated" from the RDFa Core 1.1 FPWD ←
14:30:45 <ivan> manu: We will have to discuss this in more depth and reach some kind of consensus about deprecating xmlns: after the FPWDs are out there.
Manu Sporny: We will have to discuss this in more depth and reach some kind of consensus about deprecating xmlns: after the FPWDs are out there. ←
14:31:03 <manu> Topic: Resolve to Publish RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 FPWD
14:31:16 <ivan> manu: shane, an overview?
Manu Sporny: shane, an overview? ←
14:31:46 <ivan> shane: as far as can see, modulo pubrules, the document is in agreement with the resolutions of the group
Shane McCarron: as far as can see, modulo pubrules, the document is in agreement with the resolutions of the group ←
14:31:56 <ivan> ... fpwd does not have to be perfect
... fpwd does not have to be perfect ←
14:32:17 <ivan> ... xhtml did not have the same review as core, but that is all right, not much changed there since XHTML+RDFa 1.0 :-)
... xhtml did not have the same review as core, but that is all right, not much changed there since XHTML+RDFa 1.0 :-) ←
14:32:26 <ivan> Ivan: I have concerns about the core and not publishing RDFa DOM API at the same time
Ivan Herman: I have concerns about the core and not publishing RDFa DOM API at the same time ←
14:32:42 <ivan> ... as soon as we put it out to the public, we will have the public reacting negatively to not publishing RDFa DOM API with the other two documents.
... as soon as we put it out to the public, we will have the public reacting negatively to not publishing RDFa DOM API with the other two documents. ←
14:32:40 <ivan> manu: Shane, got a link to the RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 documents?
Manu Sporny: Shane, got a link to the RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 documents? ←
14:32:55 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/
Shane McCarron: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/ ←
14:33:11 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-rdfa-core-20100414/
Shane McCarron: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-rdfa-core-20100414/ ←
14:33:20 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-xhtml-rdfa-20100413/
Shane McCarron: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-xhtml-rdfa-20100413/ ←
14:33:25 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
14:33:34 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:34:08 <manu> PROPOSAL: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft
PROPOSED: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft ←
14:34:53 <manu> Ivan: Are we going to publish RDFa DOM API now as well?
Ivan Herman: Are we going to publish RDFa DOM API now as well? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:35:37 <manu> Ivan: I think people might misunderstand the publishing RDFa DOM API at a later date as something negative.
Ivan Herman: I think people might misunderstand the publishing RDFa DOM API at a later date as something negative. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:35:46 <manu> q+ to discuss RDFa DOM API publication
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss RDFa DOM API publication ←
14:35:50 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:36:19 <manu> Ivan: I'm concerned that people may think we're not concerned about the RDFa DOM API - we do care about it, very much.
Ivan Herman: I'm concerned that people may think we're not concerned about the RDFa DOM API - we do care about it, very much. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:36:23 <manu> ack markbirbeck
Manu Sporny: ack markbirbeck ←
14:36:30 <ivan> mark: I can understand your concern, Ivan
Mark Birbeck: I can understand your concern, Ivan ←
14:36:33 <ivan> ... but I disagree
... but I disagree ←
14:36:52 <ivan> ...the audience to this spec is very different
...the audience to this spec is very different ←
14:37:12 <ivan> .. my feeling is that the rdfa core and the xhtml will go unnoticed by general web developers.
.. my feeling is that the rdfa core and the xhtml will go unnoticed by general web developers. ←
14:37:21 <ivan> ... but RDFa itself is the story and it's evolved
... but RDFa itself is the story and it's evolved ←
14:37:30 <ivan> ... however the dom api is a different audience, different story - audience is parser developers
... however the dom api is a different audience, different story - audience is parser developers ←
14:37:41 <ivan> ... RDFa DOM API is really aimed at web developers and we really think we should aim it at the html authors
... RDFa DOM API is really aimed at web developers and we really think we should aim it at the html authors ←
14:37:42 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
14:37:46 <manu> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
14:37:46 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss RDFa DOM API publication
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to discuss RDFa DOM API publication ←
14:37:51 <ivan> manu: I agree with mark
Manu Sporny: I agree with mark ←
14:38:13 <ivan> ... i do not want us to get into mind set where we think that all of these specs must be published at the same time.
... i do not want us to get into mind set where we think that all of these specs must be published at the same time. ←
14:38:23 <ivan> ... We shouldn't create artificial ties between the documents that do not exist.
... We shouldn't create artificial ties between the documents that do not exist. ←
14:38:33 <ivan> ... but, let's suppose that all of Ivan's fears come true - bad community backlash due to a misunderstanding of where our priorities are
... but, let's suppose that all of Ivan's fears come true - bad community backlash due to a misunderstanding of where our priorities are ←
14:38:41 <ivan> ... we have to have courage, and take the heat if that happens
... we have to have courage, and take the heat if that happens ←
14:38:54 <ivan> ... we are not talking about pushing the dom api by a couple of months, we are talking about slipping publication by two weeks.
... we are not talking about pushing the dom api by a couple of months, we are talking about slipping publication by two weeks. ←
14:39:07 <ivan> ... if slipping the date by two weeks ends up resulting in nasty remarks about the RDFa WG
... if slipping the date by two weeks ends up resulting in nasty remarks about the RDFa WG ←
14:39:19 <ivan> ... those nasty remarks will be invalidated after two weeks time - when we publish the RDFa DOM API document
... those nasty remarks will be invalidated after two weeks time - when we publish the RDFa DOM API document ←
14:39:22 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:40:15 <markbirbeck> Fair point Ivan. I was bending the stick too far. :)
Mark Birbeck: Fair point Ivan. I was bending the stick too far. :) ←
14:41:35 <manu> Ivan: I hope I'm being paranoid - and I wouldn't object to FPWD.
Ivan Herman: I hope I'm being paranoid - and I wouldn't object to FPWD. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:41:52 <manu> Ivan: I think these are the same audiences - we've changed some pretty major stuff.
Ivan Herman: I think these are the same audiences - we've changed some pretty major stuff. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:42:10 <Zakim> +knud
Zakim IRC Bot: +knud ←
14:42:16 <manu> PROPOSAL: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft
PROPOSED: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft ←
14:43:05 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:43:05 <ivan> ivan: +0.5
Ivan Herman: +0.5 ←
14:43:06 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
14:43:07 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:43:10 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:43:11 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:43:11 <markbirbeck> :)
Mark Birbeck: :) ←
14:43:22 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:43:36 <manu> RESOLVED: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft
RESOLVED: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft ←
14:44:00 <manu> PROPOSAL: Publish XHTML+RDFa 1.1 as First Public Working Draft
PROPOSED: Publish XHTML+RDFa 1.1 as First Public Working Draft ←
14:44:04 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:44:04 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:44:06 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:44:07 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
14:44:09 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:44:13 <ivan> ivan: +0.5 (just to be consistent)
Ivan Herman: +0.5 (just to be consistent) ←
14:44:23 <markbirbeck> I was wondering what you'd do. :)
Mark Birbeck: I was wondering what you'd do. :) ←
14:44:24 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:44:29 <manu> RESOLVED: Publish XHTML+RDFa 1.1 as First Public Working Draft
RESOLVED: Publish XHTML+RDFa 1.1 as First Public Working Draft ←
14:45:14 <ivan> manu: Great job guys on these FPWD! Many thanks to Shane who worked tirelessly to get these documents into shape over the past several weeks!
Manu Sporny: Great job guys on these FPWD! Many thanks to Shane who worked tirelessly to get these documents into shape over the past several weeks! ←
14:46:45 <ivan> clap clap clap
clap clap clap ←
14:46:50 <ivan> wohooo
wohooo ←
14:46:52 <ivan> etc
etc ←
14:46:56 <markbirbeck> Nice work Shane!
Mark Birbeck: Nice work Shane! ←
14:47:08 <ivan> Topic: RDFa DOM API
14:47:25 <ivan> manu: I have not put the API on the focus on the agendas for the past two months and I'm afraid that has put us in this situation of not being able to publish RDFa DOM API FPWD along with RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa - so let's put all of our focus on RDFa DOM API now... get it to FPWD quickly.
Manu Sporny: I have not put the API on the focus on the agendas for the past two months and I'm afraid that has put us in this situation of not being able to publish RDFa DOM API FPWD along with RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa - so let's put all of our focus on RDFa DOM API now... get it to FPWD quickly. ←
14:47:48 <ivan> ... Benjamin, Mark and and I had discussion on how to improve it
... Benjamin, Mark and and I had discussion on how to improve it ←
14:47:54 <markbirbeck> q+ To apologise for causing delay on DOM API.
Mark Birbeck: q+ To apologise for causing delay on DOM API. ←
14:48:02 <ivan> ... what we want to do is to focus solely on the dom api for the coming 2 weeks
... what we want to do is to focus solely on the dom api for the coming 2 weeks ←
14:48:21 <Benjamin> Current version of the RDFa DOM API document: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/
Benjamin Adrian: Current version of the RDFa DOM API document: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/ ←
14:48:29 <ivan> mark: apologize for causing delay, I was away with no internet connection...
Mark Birbeck: apologize for causing delay, I was away with no internet connection... ←
14:48:44 <Benjamin> And the latest version of the Javascript prototype: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/rdfa_dom_api.js
Benjamin Adrian: And the latest version of the Javascript prototype: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/rdfa_dom_api.js ←
14:48:55 <ivan> ... the key issue I am trying to push this towards
... the key issue I am trying to push this towards ←
14:49:18 <ivan> ... we should give people an api to select the elements of the dom that resulted in a triple in the triple store
... we should give people an api to select the elements of the dom that resulted in a triple in the triple store ←
14:49:32 <ivan> ... I put something up today for us to discuss
... I put something up today for us to discuss ←
14:49:47 <ivan> manu: the concern I had is that I cannot implement element tracking in Firefox using the librdfa parser
Manu Sporny: the concern I had is that I cannot implement element tracking in Firefox using the librdfa parser ←
14:50:04 <ivan> ... i know we are talking about an rdfa api
... i know we are talking about an rdfa api ←
14:50:22 <ivan> ... but it will be very difficult to implement that for implementers that don't have access to the core DOM document object
... but it will be very difficult to implement that for implementers that don't have access to the core DOM document object ←
14:50:31 <ivan> ... i do not know how to implement that in c and c++ in Firefox.
... i do not know how to implement that in c and c++ in Firefox. ←
14:50:38 <ivan> mark: i think it is pretty easy
Mark Birbeck: i think it is pretty easy ←
14:50:46 <ivan> manu: i would like to see some code
Manu Sporny: i would like to see some code ←
14:50:58 <ivan> ... if we can implement it in the c and c++ in Firefox, then we should have the feature.
... if we can implement it in the c and c++ in Firefox, then we should have the feature. ←
14:51:11 <ivan> mark: this raises the question what we want to achieve with this api
Mark Birbeck: this raises the question what we want to achieve with this api ←
14:51:26 <ivan> ... just querying triples is not really useful
... just querying triples is not really useful ←
14:51:54 <ivan> manu: that is not what i mean; if we want people to write Firefox extensions that modify the dom and give them extra methods - if we can't do that in a Firefox extension, we have a problem.
Manu Sporny: that is not what i mean; if we want people to write Firefox extensions that modify the dom and give them extra methods - if we can't do that in a Firefox extension, we have a problem. ←
14:52:12 <ivan> ... this is usually done is c and c++, and we especially have this issue with the new @profile attribute.
... this is usually done is c and c++, and we especially have this issue with the new @profile attribute. ←
14:52:34 <ivan> ... I do not think you can do it in pure javascript - dereference external @profile documents.
... I do not think you can do it in pure javascript - dereference external @profile documents. ←
14:52:41 <ivan> ... this is not about implementing it in Redland, you can do that easily.
... this is not about implementing it in Redland, you can do that easily. ←
14:52:57 <ivan> ... it is about the restrictions that Firefox and Chrome put on their extension writers
... it is about the restrictions that Firefox and Chrome put on their extension writers ←
14:53:15 <ivan> mark: if we want to do something for the in-browser developers, we have to see what is useful to those developers - tying to elements is very useful.
Mark Birbeck: if we want to do something for the in-browser developers, we have to see what is useful to those developers - tying to elements is very useful. ←
14:53:18 <manu> +1 to what Mark just said.
Manu Sporny: +1 to what Mark just said. ←
14:53:28 <ivan> ... we may need an additional thing in the api
... we may need an additional thing in the api ←
14:53:44 <ivan> ... maybe we need some events that get passed
... maybe we need some events that get passed ←
14:53:54 <ivan> ... we have to try to solve this rather than drop it
... we have to try to solve this rather than drop it ←
14:54:30 <ivan> manu: with that said, do you have examples of extending the Document object in Firefox? Not using Javascript - but with C/C++?
Manu Sporny: with that said, do you have examples of extending the Document object in Firefox? Not using Javascript - but with C/C++? ←
14:55:02 <ivan> markbirbeck: we had all kinds of things experimented with in our xforms work, there are lots of stuff we looked at
Mark Birbeck: we had all kinds of things experimented with in our xforms work, there are lots of stuff we looked at ←
14:55:18 <ivan> manu: are you opposed getting just triples in javascript?
Manu Sporny: are you opposed getting just triples in javascript? ←
14:55:44 <ivan> markbirbeck: i do not have a problem with some kind of layering
Mark Birbeck: i do not have a problem with some kind of layering ←
14:55:55 <ivan> ... eg in sparql you have the notion of projection
... eg in sparql you have the notion of projection ←
14:56:08 <ivan> ... the result is the set of results with all kinds of properties
... the result is the set of results with all kinds of properties ←
14:56:16 <ivan> ... you get back objects
... you get back objects ←
14:56:32 <ivan> ... that is natural for js programmers
... that is natural for js programmers ←
14:56:34 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
14:56:37 <Benjamin> The current API version may be easily extended to query DOM nodes with certain RDFa content.
Benjamin Adrian: The current API version may be easily extended to query DOM nodes with certain RDFa content. ←
14:56:37 <ivan> ack markbirbeck
ack markbirbeck ←
14:56:37 <Zakim> markbirbeck, you wanted to apologise for causing delay on DOM API.
Zakim IRC Bot: markbirbeck, you wanted to apologise for causing delay on DOM API. ←
14:56:38 <manu> ack mark
Manu Sporny: ack mark ←
14:57:07 <ivan> markbirbeck: i have not looked at other languages, we may have a language specific holes where objects can be used
Mark Birbeck: i have not looked at other languages, we may have a language specific holes where objects can be used ←
14:57:22 <ivan> ... and languages should fill that in - use whatever makes sense natively - objects in object-oriented languages.
... and languages should fill that in - use whatever makes sense natively - objects in object-oriented languages. ←
14:57:36 <ivan> ... but all objects should have a pointer at that element where the triple comes from
... but all objects should have a pointer at that element where the triple comes from ←
14:57:59 <Benjamin> q+
Benjamin Adrian: q+ ←
14:58:23 <ivan> ... we get both the semantics and the element that produced that
... we get both the semantics and the element that produced that ←
14:58:26 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:59:38 <manu> q+ to discuss triples-as-objects
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss triples-as-objects ←
14:59:41 <Benjamin> -1 to Ivans proposal
Benjamin Adrian: -1 to Ivans proposal ←
14:59:48 <manu> ack benjamin
Manu Sporny: ack benjamin ←
15:00:04 <manu> Ivan: We don't have to provide every feature when doing a FPWD - do we really need this in there.
Ivan Herman: We don't have to provide every feature when doing a FPWD - do we really need this in there. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:00:13 <ivan> Benjamin: The RDFa DOM API is not in a publish-able state right now - we cannot publish it today
Benjamin Adrian: The RDFa DOM API is not in a publish-able state right now - we cannot publish it today ←
15:00:26 <ivan> ... I think we should reach a concensus about the general style of the document
... I think we should reach a concensus about the general style of the document ←
15:00:49 <ivan> ... we should get a feeling for what the api would look like
... we should get a feeling for what the api would look like ←
15:00:51 <manu> q-
Manu Sporny: q- ←
15:00:55 <manu> q+ to end the telecon
Manu Sporny: q+ to end the telecon ←
15:01:04 <ivan> manu: we can add mark's proposal to this and see how it works together with the stuff that's already in there.
Manu Sporny: we can add mark's proposal to this and see how it works together with the stuff that's already in there. ←
15:01:10 <ShaneM> Remember that published documents have their own momentum... Once it starts rolling in a certain direction it is hard to change. The faster it rolls the harder it is to redirect.
Shane McCarron: Remember that published documents have their own momentum... Once it starts rolling in a certain direction it is hard to change. The faster it rolls the harder it is to redirect. ←
15:01:40 <ivan> manu: mark, what would help us most is to give us examples
Manu Sporny: mark, what would help us most is to give us examples ←
15:01:47 <ivan> ... see how we can have this happen
... see how we can have this happen ←
15:01:53 <ivan> meeting adjourned
meeting adjourned ←
15:02:10 <Zakim> -markbirbeck
Zakim IRC Bot: -markbirbeck ←
15:02:12 <Zakim> -Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven ←
15:02:14 <Zakim> -knud
Zakim IRC Bot: -knud ←
15:02:20 <Zakim> -Benjamin
Zakim IRC Bot: -Benjamin ←
15:02:31 <Knud> +1 to what Shane just said
Knud Möller: +1 to what Shane just said ←
15:02:50 <markbirbeck> +1.5
Mark Birbeck: +1.5 ←
15:03:00 <markbirbeck> (I'm using up the bits that Ivan didn't use. :))
Mark Birbeck: (I'm using up the bits that Ivan didn't use. :)) ←
Formatted by CommonScribe