13:52:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-irc ←
13:54:30 <manu> trackbot, prepare telecon
Manu Sporny: trackbot, prepare telecon ←
13:54:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:54:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
13:54:34 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes ←
13:54:35 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
13:54:35 <trackbot> Date: 22 July 2010
13:54:39 <manu> Chair: Manu
13:55:20 <manu> Present: Ivan, Steven, Manu, Shane, MarkB, Knud
13:58:57 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
13:59:04 <Zakim> + +1.540.961.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.961.aaaa ←
13:59:10 <manu> zakim, I am aaaa
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am aaaa ←
13:59:10 <Zakim> +manu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu; got it ←
14:00:21 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
Steven Pemberton: zakim, dial steven-617 ←
14:00:21 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven; the call is being made ←
14:00:22 <Zakim> +Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven ←
14:01:34 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:01:34 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:01:35 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:01:48 <Zakim> +ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM ←
14:02:38 <Zakim> + +3539149aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +3539149aabb ←
14:03:29 <Steven> zakim, aabb is Knud
Steven Pemberton: zakim, aabb is Knud ←
14:03:29 <Zakim> +Knud; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Knud; got it ←
14:03:52 <manu> Regrets: Toby
14:04:01 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:04:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu, Steven, Ivan, ShaneM, Knud
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see manu, Steven, Ivan, ShaneM, Knud ←
14:04:46 <markbirbeck> zakim, code?
Mark Birbeck: zakim, code? ←
14:04:46 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), markbirbeck
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), markbirbeck ←
14:05:58 <Zakim> +??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←
14:06:05 <markbirbeck> zakim, i am ?
Mark Birbeck: zakim, i am ? ←
14:06:05 <Zakim> +markbirbeck; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +markbirbeck; got it ←
14:06:53 <manu> Scribe: Mark
(Scribe set to Mark Birbeck)
14:07:13 <markbirbeck> TOPIC: Heartbeat working drafts by end July 2010.
14:07:35 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
Steven Pemberton: rrsagent, make minutes ←
14:07:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-minutes.html Steven ←
14:08:28 <markbirbeck> Manu: We may be late on RDFa Core...need to publish every 3 months.
Manu Sporny: We may be late on RDFa Core...need to publish every 3 months. ←
14:08:49 <markbirbeck> Steven: Technically, we need to publish /something/ every 3 months, but not necessarily each draft.
Steven Pemberton: Technically, we need to publish /something/ every 3 months, but not necessarily each draft. ←
14:09:10 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Agree...according to process we're ok.
Ivan Herman: Agree...according to process we're ok. ←
14:09:35 <markbirbeck> Shane: We can publish RDFa Core whenever we like, it's always up-to-date.
Shane McCarron: We can publish RDFa Core whenever we like, it's always up-to-date. ←
14:09:38 <Steven> zakim, who is on the phone?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:09:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu, Steven, Ivan, ShaneM, Knud, markbirbeck
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see manu, Steven, Ivan, ShaneM, Knud, markbirbeck ←
14:09:51 <markbirbeck> Manu: Not too worried about state of RDFa Core.
Manu Sporny: Not too worried about state of RDFa Core. ←
14:10:01 <markbirbeck> ... But we haven't done anything on the API document for a while.
... But we haven't done anything on the API document for a while. ←
14:10:17 <markbirbeck> ... Shane, could we have RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa ready to go?
... Shane, could we have RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa ready to go? ←
14:10:26 <markbirbeck> ... And then we could discuss the API document in the next month.
... And then we could discuss the API document in the next month. ←
14:10:32 <markbirbeck> ... Everyone ok with that?
... Everyone ok with that? ←
14:10:40 <markbirbeck> General nodding.
General nodding. ←
14:10:52 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:10:53 <markbirbeck> TOPIC: ISSUE-26 Error Reporting Mechanism
14:13:10 <manu> MarkB: I'm concerned that we're creating a technology that we may not be able to agree on, without using up a lot of time. There are ways to do error mechanisms w/o needing an RDFa error vocabulary.
Mark Birbeck: I'm concerned that we're creating a technology that we may not be able to agree on, without using up a lot of time. There are ways to do error mechanisms w/o needing an RDFa error vocabulary. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:13:38 <manu> MarkB: So the discussion may need to go back to whether or not we need to specify the error reporting mechanism in RDFa Core.
Mark Birbeck: So the discussion may need to go back to whether or not we need to specify the error reporting mechanism in RDFa Core. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:14:01 <manu> Ivan: Maybe we can keep the current formulation of processor graph and default graph.
Ivan Herman: Maybe we can keep the current formulation of processor graph and default graph. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:14:09 <Steven> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0121
14:14:14 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
Steven Pemberton: rrsagent, make minutes ←
14:14:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-minutes.html Steven ←
14:14:36 <manu> Ivan: We should not define the details of what goes into the processor graph.
Ivan Herman: We should not define the details of what goes into the processor graph. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:14:41 <manu> q+ to discuss vocabulary
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss vocabulary ←
14:14:45 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:15:19 <manu> Ivan: If we do not put the error vocabulary into the document, maybe the community will give us feedback as to whether or not they want an error reporting mechanism.
Ivan Herman: If we do not put the error vocabulary into the document, maybe the community will give us feedback as to whether or not they want an error reporting mechanism. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:15:23 <manu> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
14:15:23 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss vocabulary
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to discuss vocabulary ←
14:15:30 <ShaneM> I don't care anymore
Shane McCarron: I don't care anymore ←
14:16:49 <markbirbeck> Manu: Problem is that each parser has a different mechanism for reporting errors.
Manu Sporny: Problem is that each parser has a different mechanism for reporting errors. ←
14:16:49 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:17:08 <markbirbeck> ... Would be great if Firefox's technique was the same as Ivan's Distiller.
... Would be great if Firefox's technique was the same as Ivan's Distiller. ←
14:17:33 <markbirbeck> ... If we think that this would be useful not just to developers but end-users, then we should go to some lengths to define these values.
... If we think that this would be useful not just to developers but end-users, then we should go to some lengths to define these values. ←
14:17:58 <markbirbeck> ... We don't necessarily need to put the error vocabulary into RDFa Core, but it would be good if we did create a vocabulary.
... We don't necessarily need to put the error vocabulary into RDFa Core, but it would be good if we did create a vocabulary. ←
14:18:08 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:18:27 <markbirbeck> Ivan: The problem is that realistically this is where opinions differ.
Ivan Herman: The problem is that realistically this is where opinions differ. ←
14:18:55 <markbirbeck> ... So I have my version of the vocabulary...Benjamin wants an XML literal...Mark wants something EARL-based.
... So I have my version of the vocabulary...Benjamin wants an XML literal...Mark wants something EARL-based. ←
14:19:10 <manu> q+ to discuss consensus
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss consensus ←
14:19:18 <markbirbeck> ... So obtaining consensus is going to be time-consuming.
... So obtaining consensus is going to be time-consuming. ←
14:19:37 <markbirbeck> ... Agree with Mark that this isn't so central that it should take up so much time.
... Agree with Mark that this isn't so central that it should take up so much time. ←
14:19:49 <manu> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
14:19:49 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss consensus
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to discuss consensus ←
14:19:53 <markbirbeck> ... So for the time being feel that we should just leave it open for now.
... So for the time being feel that we should just leave it open for now. ←
14:20:08 <markbirbeck> Manu: Not saying that this vocabulary should be discussed in the WG - perhaps we could write it up as a best practice and have some test case coverage?
Manu Sporny: Not saying that this vocabulary should be discussed in the WG - perhaps we could write it up as a best practice and have some test case coverage? ←
14:20:29 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Ok...happy to write that down.
Ivan Herman: Ok...happy to write that down. ←
14:21:20 <markbirbeck> Manu: Seems like something that is useful and warrants guidance.
Manu Sporny: Seems like something that is useful and warrants guidance. ←
14:24:20 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about how errors are handled in core
Shane McCarron: q+ to talk about how errors are handled in core ←
14:24:57 <manu> MarkB: I don't know if we need to have anything in RDFa Core about processor graphs. I think it makes sense in the RDFa API document.
Mark Birbeck: I don't know if we need to have anything in RDFa Core about processor graphs. I think it makes sense in the RDFa API document. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:25:01 <ivan> ack ShaneM
Ivan Herman: ack ShaneM ←
14:25:01 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about how errors are handled in core
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to talk about how errors are handled in core ←
14:25:05 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:25:11 <markbirbeck> MarkB: Would prefer to not see this in there at all, because I have a general feeling that things are getting more complicated.
Mark Birbeck: Would prefer to not see this in there at all, because I have a general feeling that things are getting more complicated. ←
14:25:19 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:25:34 <markbirbeck> Shane: What do we say in the core document about processing errors?
Shane McCarron: What do we say in the core document about processing errors? ←
14:25:49 <markbirbeck> Ivan: We should retain the processor graph idea, so we only need to refer to that.
Ivan Herman: We should retain the processor graph idea, so we only need to refer to that. ←
14:25:57 <markbirbeck> ... We don't need to say what the triples look like.
... We don't need to say what the triples look like. ←
14:26:19 <markbirbeck> Shane: If there is consensus on that then I'm fine.
Shane McCarron: If there is consensus on that then I'm fine. ←
14:26:37 <markbirbeck> Manu: There is other language in there about how to access this graph.
Manu Sporny: There is other language in there about how to access this graph. ←
14:26:50 <ShaneM> The language is here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#processor-status
Shane McCarron: The language is here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#processor-status ←
14:29:17 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:30:08 <markbirbeck> Manu: It looks like section 7.6.2 is what should come out.
Manu Sporny: It looks like section 7.6.2 is what should come out. ←
14:31:01 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Think that the final warning in the list shouldn't be a must.
Ivan Herman: Think that the final warning in the list shouldn't be a must. ←
14:31:15 <markbirbeck> ... (In the opening part of section 7.6.)
... (In the opening part of section 7.6.) ←
14:31:54 <ivan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0130.html
Ivan Herman: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0130.html ←
14:32:46 <markbirbeck> MarkB: Are we saying processors MUST implement all of this?
Mark Birbeck: Are we saying processors MUST implement all of this? ←
14:33:16 <markbirbeck> Manu: No. If you choose to implement this, then it must conform to this particular arrangement.
Manu Sporny: No. If you choose to implement this, then it must conform to this particular arrangement. ←
14:33:18 <manu> PROPOSAL: A general error reporting mechanism should be described by RDFa Core, but the specifics of the RDFa Error Vocabulary are out of scope for RDFa Core per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0130.html
PROPOSED: A general error reporting mechanism should be described by RDFa Core, but the specifics of the RDFa Error Vocabulary are out of scope for RDFa Core per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0130.html ←
14:33:33 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:33:43 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:33:50 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:33:56 <markbirbeck> MarkB: +0
Mark Birbeck: +0 ←
14:34:05 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:34:28 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:34:45 <manu> Manu: Any particular reason for the +0, Mark?
Manu Sporny: Any particular reason for the +0, Mark? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:35:12 <manu> MarkB: Not sure if this causes issues - not certain about it yet, but could go either way.
Mark Birbeck: Not sure if this causes issues - not certain about it yet, but could go either way. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:35:32 <manu> Manu: If it causes issues at LC or later, we'll have to take it out or modify it - we'll see if the implementers and the community can spot any issues.
Manu Sporny: If it causes issues at LC or later, we'll have to take it out or modify it - we'll see if the implementers and the community can spot any issues. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:36:14 <manu> RESOLVED: A general error reporting mechanism should be described by RDFa Core, but the specifics of the RDFa Error Vocabulary are out of scope for RDFa Core per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0130.html
RESOLVED: A general error reporting mechanism should be described by RDFa Core, but the specifics of the RDFa Error Vocabulary are out of scope for RDFa Core per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0130.html ←
14:36:32 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Don't forget to update tracker.
Ivan Herman: Don't forget to update tracker. ←
14:36:41 <markbirbeck> TOPIC: ISSUE 24 Case-sensitive terms in HTML5
14:36:48 <Steven> issue-26?
14:36:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-26 -- Do we need an error reporting mechanism for RDFa? -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-26 -- Do we need an error reporting mechanism for RDFa? -- closed ←
14:36:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/26
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/26 ←
14:36:52 <markbirbeck> Manu: Shane put out a proposal in the last day or so.
Manu Sporny: Shane put out a proposal in the last day or so. ←
14:37:03 <Steven> issue-24?
14:37:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Should all terms be case-sensitive in HTML5 and XHTML? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-24 -- Should all terms be case-sensitive in HTML5 and XHTML? -- open ←
14:37:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/24
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/24 ←
14:37:16 <markbirbeck> Shane: This is actually Manu's proposal...I just provided the dextrous digits.
Shane McCarron: This is actually Manu's proposal...I just provided the dextrous digits. ←
14:37:41 <markbirbeck> ... Upshot of the proposal is to treat all terms as being compared case-insensitively.
... Upshot of the proposal is to treat all terms as being compared case-insensitively. ←
14:38:02 <markbirbeck> ... Solves the real problem I had which was that special-casing vocabularies seemed weird.
... Solves the real problem I had which was that special-casing vocabularies seemed weird. ←
14:38:20 <markbirbeck> ... Comparison of terms is case-insensitive.
... Comparison of terms is case-insensitive. ←
14:38:26 <markbirbeck> ... Languages can define terms.
... Languages can define terms. ←
14:38:45 <manu> q+ to discuss language documents that specify terms
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss language documents that specify terms ←
14:38:46 <markbirbeck> ... A profile should be declared to contain the terms, but they can be hard-coded.
... A profile should be declared to contain the terms, but they can be hard-coded. ←
14:38:48 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:39:48 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Clarifications: It's not a core part of the proposal but relates to last week's discussion -- the default vocabulary goes away.
Ivan Herman: Clarifications: It's not a core part of the proposal but relates to last week's discussion -- the default vocabulary goes away. ←
14:40:33 <markbirbeck> Shane: Disagree. The spec says that a language can define a default vocabulary.
Shane McCarron: Disagree. The spec says that a language can define a default vocabulary. ←
14:41:12 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Second thing is what to do with CURIEs that have an empty prefix.
Ivan Herman: Second thing is what to do with CURIEs that have an empty prefix. ←
14:41:33 <markbirbeck> ... Shane's proposal resolves this, but would like to see a note in there to say that it's not a good idea.
... Shane's proposal resolves this, but would like to see a note in there to say that it's not a good idea. ←
14:41:58 <markbirbeck> ... Final thing is to say that the set of terms in the current profile is fixed.
... Final thing is to say that the set of terms in the current profile is fixed. ←
14:42:07 <markbirbeck> ... I.e., if we add more terms then we need a new URI.
... I.e., if we add more terms then we need a new URI. ←
14:42:19 <markbirbeck> ... Not sure how that will go down with HTML 5 and others.
... Not sure how that will go down with HTML 5 and others. ←
14:42:38 <markbirbeck> Manu: Want to make it easy for implementers to define one set of terms.
Manu Sporny: Want to make it easy for implementers to define one set of terms. ←
14:43:03 <markbirbeck> ... In the future HTML 5 will start adding terms, but it could take a while, so I don't think there will be an issue for a while.
... In the future HTML 5 will start adding terms, but it could take a while, so I don't think there will be an issue for a while. ←
14:43:49 <markbirbeck> ... So we say that this is the default document for all RDFa processors. Then in a year or two we discover that there are other terms needed, then it's not too much of an issue to just add them and create a new default profile document.
... So we say that this is the default document for all RDFa processors. Then in a year or two we discover that there are other terms needed, then it's not too much of an issue to just add them and create a new default profile document. ←
14:44:24 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:44:27 <manu> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
14:44:27 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss language documents that specify terms
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to discuss language documents that specify terms ←
14:44:30 <markbirbeck> ... However, if we need something dynamic for HTML 5 then we could create a document that contains a profile that must be loaded.
... However, if we need something dynamic for HTML 5 then we could create a document that contains a profile that must be loaded. ←
14:46:00 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:46:20 <markbirbeck> Ivan: I'm going to get into details here... I think we need to.
Ivan Herman: I'm going to get into details here... I think we need to. ←
14:46:41 <markbirbeck> ... Conceptually XHTML will have its own profile document that lists the terms. Whether that's cached or not is beside the point.
... Conceptually XHTML will have its own profile document that lists the terms. Whether that's cached or not is beside the point. ←
14:47:15 <markbirbeck> ... What happens if I have an XHTML document that has a profile document at the top, in the HTML element?
... What happens if I have an XHTML document that has a profile document at the top, in the HTML element? ←
14:47:20 <markbirbeck> Shane: That should override the default.
Shane McCarron: That should override the default. ←
14:47:45 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Agree, but that should be made clear.
Ivan Herman: Agree, but that should be made clear. ←
14:47:52 <markbirbeck> Shane: Have related question.
Shane McCarron: Have related question. ←
14:48:32 <markbirbeck> ... If I load a profile on one element, and then load another in a child element, we get the result of both?
... If I load a profile on one element, and then load another in a child element, we get the result of both? ←
14:48:38 <markbirbeck> General nodding.
General nodding. ←
14:48:56 <markbirbeck> Shane: Since this is correct, then we have no way to clear the collection.
Shane McCarron: Since this is correct, then we have no way to clear the collection. ←
14:49:40 <markbirbeck> ... @xml:lang="" clears the language...do we want the same feature?
... @xml:lang="" clears the language...do we want the same feature? ←
14:49:47 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Give me the use-case.
Ivan Herman: Give me the use-case. ←
14:50:48 <markbirbeck> Shane: I'm bringing in a part of a document, and I want to ensure that only the triples I want get included.
Shane McCarron: I'm bringing in a part of a document, and I want to ensure that only the triples I want get included. ←
14:50:56 <markbirbeck> ... Will raise this separately.
... Will raise this separately. ←
14:51:15 <markbirbeck> Ivan: If we're planning a new draft, we should also get the default profile document ready.
Ivan Herman: If we're planning a new draft, we should also get the default profile document ready. ←
14:51:32 <markbirbeck> Manu: Isn't that the same as the XHTML Vocab document?
Manu Sporny: Isn't that the same as the XHTML Vocab document? ←
14:51:38 <markbirbeck> Shane: Yes...I'll update it.
Shane McCarron: Yes...I'll update it. ←
14:51:53 <markbirbeck> Manu: Any objections to Shane's proposal?
Manu Sporny: Any objections to Shane's proposal? ←
14:52:25 <Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0122.html
Steven Pemberton: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0122.html ←
14:52:41 <manu> PROPOSAL: Adopt proposal for addressing ISSUE-24 (case-sensitive terms in HTML5) as posted to the mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0122.html
PROPOSED: Adopt proposal for addressing ISSUE-24 (case-sensitive terms in HTML5) as posted to the mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0122.html ←
14:52:52 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:52:54 <markbirbeck> Mark: +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
14:52:55 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:52:56 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:52:59 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:53:06 <manu> RESOLVED: Adopt proposal for addressing ISSUE-24 (case-sensitive terms in HTML5) as posted to the mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0122.html
RESOLVED: Adopt proposal for addressing ISSUE-24 (case-sensitive terms in HTML5) as posted to the mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0122.html ←
14:53:10 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:53:38 <markbirbeck> TOPIC: ISSUE 3 HTML5 Infoset coercion
14:53:43 <Steven> issue-3?
14:53:43 <trackbot> ISSUE-3 -- Updating HTML5 coercion to Infoset rules -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-3 -- Updating HTML5 coercion to Infoset rules -- open ←
14:53:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/3
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/3 ←
14:54:00 <markbirbeck> Manu: Could either be very easy to resolve...or very difficult, depending on whether we involve the HTML WG.
Manu Sporny: Could either be very easy to resolve...or very difficult, depending on whether we involve the HTML WG. ←
14:55:02 <markbirbeck> ... Issue raised some time ago by Henri, when he said that if we don't specify how to coerce the document into an infoset, then people won't know how to get xmlns-based attribute values.
... Issue raised some time ago by Henri, when he said that if we don't specify how to coerce the document into an infoset, then people won't know how to get xmlns-based attribute values. ←
14:55:22 <markbirbeck> ... No-one had this problem, since many people had created JS parsers.
... No-one had this problem, since many people had created JS parsers. ←
14:56:23 <markbirbeck> ... There's a proposal now that HTML 5 parsing should preserve namespace values.
... There's a proposal now that HTML 5 parsing should preserve namespace values. ←
14:57:17 <markbirbeck> Ivan: It's one of those things where I understood it when you were explaining it...then it vanished.
Ivan Herman: It's one of those things where I understood it when you were explaining it...then it vanished. ←
14:57:27 <markbirbeck> ... Is this something this WG has to deal with?
... Is this something this WG has to deal with? ←
14:57:36 <markbirbeck> ... And is the HTML WG prepared to look at this?
... And is the HTML WG prepared to look at this? ←
14:58:06 <markbirbeck> Manu: If we specify it, it will make it easier to extract the xmlns values. It will simplify the algorithm.
Manu Sporny: If we specify it, it will make it easier to extract the xmlns values. It will simplify the algorithm. ←
14:58:43 <markbirbeck> ... If it's rejected from HTML 5, then we have another path which is to specify it ourselves, which is already done and it works reliably.
... If it's rejected from HTML 5, then we have another path which is to specify it ourselves, which is already done and it works reliably. ←
14:59:43 <markbirbeck> ... As to whether the HTML WG is open to this, I don't know; an issue would be whether this breaks backwards-compatibility, and to answer that we'd need to speak in more detail with browser vendors.
... As to whether the HTML WG is open to this, I don't know; an issue would be whether this breaks backwards-compatibility, and to answer that we'd need to speak in more detail with browser vendors. ←
15:00:28 <markbirbeck> ... This is already in the spec and Henri hasn't raised any objections yet, but that may be because it's not on his (and/or Hixie's) radar.
... This is already in the spec and Henri hasn't raised any objections yet, but that may be because it's not on his (and/or Hixie's) radar. ←
15:00:59 <ShaneM> q+ to suggest a path
Shane McCarron: q+ to suggest a path ←
15:01:06 <manu> ack shanem
Manu Sporny: ack shanem ←
15:01:06 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to suggest a path
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to suggest a path ←
15:01:26 <markbirbeck> ... If the coercion to infoset changes are not made to HTML 5 then we just do it the hard way, and look in both places for the values.
... If the coercion to infoset changes are not made to HTML 5 then we just do it the hard way, and look in both places for the values. ←
15:01:55 <markbirbeck> Shane: Admire your passion Erin Brokovich, but we have a solution, so not sure it's worth pushing on it.
Shane McCarron: Admire your passion Erin Brokovich, but we have a solution, so not sure it's worth pushing on it. ←
15:02:19 <markbirbeck> ... Since browsers won't know whether this breaks anything, then they could well be reluctant to make this change.
... Since browsers won't know whether this breaks anything, then they could well be reluctant to make this change. ←
15:02:33 <markbirbeck> ... "Let it go, Manu...let it go".
... "Let it go, Manu...let it go". ←
15:02:44 <markbirbeck> Manu: We can ensure backwards compatibility by placing "xmlns:foo" values in the null namespace like HTML5 does now and in addition, create the namespace tuple for Infoset-based parsers. It's the proper, non-hackish solution to this problem. I think I'm going to push a bit longer.
Manu Sporny: We can ensure backwards compatibility by placing "xmlns:foo" values in the null namespace like HTML5 does now and in addition, create the namespace tuple for Infoset-based parsers. It's the proper, non-hackish solution to this problem. I think I'm going to push a bit longer. ←
15:03:26 <markbirbeck> (Would like to point out that we all laughed when Manu first suggested that HTML 5 should support RDFa, and that he was going to make it happen.)
(Would like to point out that we all laughed when Manu first suggested that HTML 5 should support RDFa, and that he was going to make it happen.) ←
15:03:47 <Steven> Regrets for next 4 weeks
Steven Pemberton: Regrets for next 4 weeks ←
15:04:15 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Regrets for next 4 weeks.
Ivan Herman: Regrets for next 4 weeks. ←
15:04:24 <markbirbeck> Steven: Regrets for next 4 weeks.
Steven Pemberton: Regrets for next 4 weeks. ←
15:05:14 <Zakim> -manu
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu ←
15:05:15 <Zakim> -markbirbeck
Zakim IRC Bot: -markbirbeck ←
15:05:15 <ivan> zakim, drop me
Ivan Herman: zakim, drop me ←
15:05:16 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan is being disconnected ←
15:05:16 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
15:05:18 <Zakim> -Knud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Knud ←
15:05:25 <Zakim> -ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←
15:05:46 <Steven> zakim, who is on the phone?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:05:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Steven ←
15:05:51 <Zakim> -Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven ←
15:05:52 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended ←
15:05:54 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.540.961.aaaa, manu, Steven, Ivan, ShaneM, +3539149aabb, Knud, markbirbeck
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.540.961.aaaa, manu, Steven, Ivan, ShaneM, +3539149aabb, Knud, markbirbeck ←
15:06:03 <Steven> rrsagent,make minutes
Steven Pemberton: rrsagent,make minutes ←
15:06:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-minutes.html Steven ←
15:06:19 <markbirbeck> For information: I'm speaking at an event organised with Talis and NHS, on August 17th on Ontologies and Healthcare. Have invited Steven to speak on RDFa, since he's visiting at the time. :)
For information: I'm speaking at an event organised with Talis and NHS, on August 17th on Ontologies and Healthcare. Have invited Steven to speak on RDFa, since he's visiting at the time. :) ←
Formatted by CommonScribe