14:55:57 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-rdfa-irc ←
14:55:59 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:56:02 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
14:56:02 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes ←
14:56:04 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
14:56:06 <trackbot> Date: 10 November 2011
14:56:41 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0035.html
13:44:34 <manu1> Guest: Niklas (niklasl) Lindström
15:01:05 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
15:01:17 <Zakim> +scor
Zakim IRC Bot: +scor ←
15:01:31 <Zakim> +??P35
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P35 ←
15:01:37 <ShaneM> zakim, I am ??P35
Shane McCarron: zakim, I am ??P35 ←
15:01:53 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it ←
15:02:09 <Zakim> +??P41
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P41 ←
15:02:12 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P41
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P41 ←
15:02:15 <Zakim> +??P38
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P38 ←
15:02:23 <Zakim> +??P42
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P42 ←
15:02:25 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P38
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P38 ←
15:02:41 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
15:02:50 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
15:03:15 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
15:03:23 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
15:03:33 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
15:03:37 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
15:03:40 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:04:01 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P41
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P41 ←
15:04:03 <scor> zakim, who is making noise?
Stéphane Corlosquet: zakim, who is making noise? ←
15:04:09 <Zakim> + +1.404.978.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.404.978.aaaa ←
15:04:20 <Zakim> +??P53
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P53 ←
15:04:33 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P53
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P53 ←
15:04:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see scor, ShaneM, manu1, ??P42, Ivan, +1.404.978.aaaa, ??P53
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see scor, ShaneM, manu1, ??P42, Ivan, +1.404.978.aaaa, ??P53 ←
15:04:54 <gkellogg> zakim, I'm ??P42
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I'm ??P42 ←
15:04:56 <Zakim> sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??P41'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??P41' ←
15:05:02 <Zakim> scor, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ShaneM (11%), ??P42 (29%), ??P53 (20%)
Zakim IRC Bot: scor, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ShaneM (11%), ??P42 (29%), ??P53 (20%) ←
15:05:06 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl; got it ←
15:05:20 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I'm ??P42', gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'I'm ??P42', gkellogg ←
15:05:34 <gkellogg> zakim, I'm ??P42
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I'm ??P42 ←
15:05:36 <tomayac> zakim, +1.404.978.aaaa is me
Thomas Steiner: zakim, +1.404.978.aaaa is me ←
15:05:41 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P42
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P42 ←
15:05:53 <scor> zakim, ??P42 is gkellogg
Stéphane Corlosquet: zakim, ??P42 is gkellogg ←
15:05:55 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I'm ??P42', gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'I'm ??P42', gkellogg ←
15:05:57 <Zakim> +tomayac; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +tomayac; got it ←
15:05:59 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
15:06:05 <Zakim> I already had ??P42 as gkellogg, scor
Zakim IRC Bot: I already had ??P42 as gkellogg, scor ←
15:06:06 <tomayac> scribe: tomayac
(Scribe set to Thomas Steiner)
15:06:14 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0035.html
15:06:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'fine then!', scor
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'fine then!', scor ←
15:06:30 <ivan> Topic: Link Relations and Microformats Community
15:06:30 <tomayac> ivan: It turns out that HTML5 uses the link relations defined by the Microformats community and not from the IETF Link Types registry, so using the Link Types from the IETF Link Types registry will conflict with the ones that are "officially recognized" by the HTML5 specification.
Ivan Herman: It turns out that HTML5 uses the link relations defined by the Microformats community and not from the IETF Link Types registry, so using the Link Types from the IETF Link Types registry will conflict with the ones that are "officially recognized" by the HTML5 specification. ←
15:06:30 <ivan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0044.html
Ivan Herman: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0044.html ←
15:06:30 <ivan> http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values
Ivan Herman: http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values ←
15:06:59 <tomayac> ivan: Just received an e-mail from Tantek (of Microformats community) verifying this - we will have to look at link relations again
Ivan Herman: Just received an e-mail from Tantek (of Microformats community) verifying this - we will have to look at link relations again ←
15:07:21 <tomayac> ivan: I'm starting to doubt that the defaults specified by the Microformats community make sense.
Ivan Herman: I'm starting to doubt that the defaults specified by the Microformats community make sense. ←
15:07:05 <tomayac> ivan: …for link relations that is
Ivan Herman: …for link relations that is ←
15:07:32 <tomayac> ivan: I'll follow up on a related issue after the call
Ivan Herman: I'll follow up on a related issue after the call ←
15:07:50 <manu1> Topic: Official support for RDFa Lite 1.1 and schema.org
15:07:52 <tomayac> Manu updates the group on the current feedback from schema.org, the proposed way forward, and the potential impact of the changes on adoption vs. backwards compatability.
Manu updates the group on the current feedback from schema.org, the proposed way forward, and the potential impact of the changes on adoption vs. backwards compatability. ←
15:07:54 <manu1> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0032.html
Manu Sporny: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0032.html ←
15:20:09 <ShaneM> q+ to ask about publication process
(No events recorded for 12 minutes)
Shane McCarron: q+ to ask about publication process ←
15:20:28 <manu1> ack shaneM
Manu Sporny: ack shaneM ←
15:20:28 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about publication process
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to ask about publication process ←
15:23:01 <tomayac> ShaneM: Does our charter allow us to publish an RDFa Lite 1.1 specification?
Shane McCarron: Does our charter allow us to publish an RDFa Lite 1.1 specification? ←
15:23:03 <tomayac> ivan: Yes, I believe it does - we're chartered to publish RDFa 1.1 - we can do it as a single document or multiple documents.
Ivan Herman: Yes, I believe it does - we're chartered to publish RDFa 1.1 - we can do it as a single document or multiple documents. ←
15:23:07 <tomayac> ivan: In the very worst case, RDFa Lite 1.1 could become part of core, as a separate chapter - but we don't want to do that.
Ivan Herman: In the very worst case, RDFa Lite 1.1 could become part of core, as a separate chapter - but we don't want to do that. ←
15:23:30 <tomayac> ShaneM: that seems like a workable option in the worst case.
Shane McCarron: that seems like a workable option in the worst case. ←
15:23:44 <tomayac> ShaneM: We also need to publish a working draft of RDFa Core when we do a FPWD of RDFa Lite
Shane McCarron: We also need to publish a working draft of RDFa Core when we do a FPWD of RDFa Lite ←
15:24:12 <tomayac> manu: The vast majority of the WG is in favor of the property changes - there is only one dissenting opinion and that's from Toby, who hasn't been able to chat with us on the call yet and probably doesn't have the full picture. He does make a number of valid points, but we have discussed counter-points to those.
Manu Sporny: The vast majority of the WG is in favor of the property changes - there is only one dissenting opinion and that's from Toby, who hasn't been able to chat with us on the call yet and probably doesn't have the full picture. He does make a number of valid points, but we have discussed counter-points to those. ←
15:24:20 <tomayac> manu: The group seems to be in agreement of supporting the schema.org use case... let's make this an official WG decision.
Manu Sporny: The group seems to be in agreement of supporting the schema.org use case... let's make this an official WG decision. ←
15:24:39 <gkellogg> q+ to remind about "magnetic" @typeof
Gregg Kellogg: q+ to remind about "magnetic" @typeof ←
15:24:44 <tomayac> manu: we need two resolutions
Manu Sporny: we need two resolutions ←
15:25:00 <gkellogg> q-
Gregg Kellogg: q- ←
15:25:28 <tomayac> ivan: There are two resolutions that should be separated.
Ivan Herman: There are two resolutions that should be separated. ←
15:25:52 <tomayac> ivan: my preference would be to publish Lite as a first public working draft
Ivan Herman: my preference would be to publish Lite as a first public working draft ←
15:25:54 <niklasl> q+ to question the processing difference between @rel and "@href-attached" @property...
Niklas Lindström: q+ to question the processing difference between @rel and "@href-attached" @property... ←
15:26:00 <tomayac> ivan: and then sort out the admin issue on pushing it forward towards REC - which is just an administrative issue, not something that should block our work here right now.
Ivan Herman: and then sort out the admin issue on pushing it forward towards REC - which is just an administrative issue, not something that should block our work here right now. ←
15:26:40 <tomayac> ivan: So, let's publish RDFa Lite, let's have the resolution
Ivan Herman: So, let's publish RDFa Lite, let's have the resolution ←
15:26:47 <tomayac> niklasl: we can discuss the technical details later
Niklas Lindström: we can discuss the technical details later ←
15:26:40 <tomayac> ivan: We have two inter-operable implementations so far that seem to work just fine, so we think this technical change is fine.
Ivan Herman: We have two inter-operable implementations so far that seem to work just fine, so we think this technical change is fine. ←
15:27:40 <ivan> PROPOSAL: Publish RDFa 1.1. Lite as a FPWD together with the next publication of RDFa 1.1 Core
PROPOSED: Publish RDFa 1.1. Lite as a FPWD together with the next publication of RDFa 1.1 Core ←
15:28:11 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:28:26 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:28:28 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:28:29 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
15:28:30 <tomayac> tomayac: +1
Thomas Steiner: +1 ←
15:28:31 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
15:28:35 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:28:38 <manu1> RESOLVED: Publish RDFa 1.1. Lite as a FPWD together with the next publication of RDFa 1.1 Core.
RESOLVED: Publish RDFa 1.1. Lite as a FPWD together with the next publication of RDFa 1.1 Core. ←
15:29:44 <tomayac> niklasl: quick question on order of publications, do we publish Lite and then Core, or Core and then Lite?
Niklas Lindström: quick question on order of publications, do we publish Lite and then Core, or Core and then Lite? ←
15:30:27 <tomayac> ivan: We publish both at the same time.
Ivan Herman: We publish both at the same time. ←
15:30:27 <tomayac> ivan: Ok, now - do we support the changes to the RDFa Core spec to support the schema.org use cases?
Ivan Herman: Ok, now - do we support the changes to the RDFa Core spec to support the schema.org use cases? ←
15:30:39 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Accept the modification proposal on the behaviour of @property and @typeof, as outlined in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof, modulo the technical details that still have to be sorted out, to support the schema.org use cases
PROPOSED: Accept the modification proposal on the behaviour of @property and @typeof, as outlined in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof, modulo the technical details that still have to be sorted out, to support the schema.org use cases ←
15:30:54 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:30:55 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
15:30:56 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:30:57 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:30:58 <tomayac> tomayac: +1
Thomas Steiner: +1 ←
15:31:00 <scor_> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
15:31:09 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:31:13 <manu1> RESOLVED: Accept the modification proposal on the behaviour of @property and @typeof, as outlined in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof, modulo the technical details that still have to be sorted out, to support the schema.org use cases.
RESOLVED: Accept the modification proposal on the behaviour of @property and @typeof, as outlined in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof, modulo the technical details that still have to be sorted out, to support the schema.org use cases. ←
15:32:55 <tomayac> manu: There are two additional changes to RDFa Lite that we need to discuss
Manu Sporny: There are two additional changes to RDFa Lite that we need to discuss ←
15:33:06 <tomayac> manu: one is the addition of the @content attribute
Manu Sporny: one is the addition of the @content attribute ←
15:33:21 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:33:31 <tomayac> manu: the other is to remove @rel from Lite, as it's not necessary for the schema.org or rnews use cases. People can use the newly changed property to support all of the use cases.
Manu Sporny: the other is to remove @rel from Lite, as it's not necessary for the schema.org or rnews use cases. People can use the newly changed property to support all of the use cases. ←
15:33:47 <gkellogg> q+ to ask about <data> @value as well
Gregg Kellogg: q+ to ask about <data> @value as well ←
15:33:52 <tomayac> manu: I looked through all rnews and all schema.org markup, and we don't need @rel to support those use cases - let's simplify RDFa Lite even further.
Manu Sporny: I looked through all rnews and all schema.org markup, and we don't need @rel to support those use cases - let's simplify RDFa Lite even further. ←
15:34:09 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:34:10 <Zakim> niklasl, you wanted to question the processing difference between @rel and "@href-attached" @property...
Zakim IRC Bot: niklasl, you wanted to question the processing difference between @rel and "@href-attached" @property... ←
15:35:20 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
15:35:50 <tomayac> ivan: I think the content attribute in Lite should be allowed everywhere
Ivan Herman: I think the content attribute in Lite should be allowed everywhere ←
15:36:30 <manu1> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
15:36:48 <tomayac> ivan: to avoid unnecessary discussion I'd like to limit @content to just meta in RDFa Lite
Ivan Herman: to avoid unnecessary discussion I'd like to limit @content to just meta in RDFa Lite ←
15:37:03 <tomayac> ivan: concerning @rel, there are a few situations where it is necessary
Ivan Herman: concerning @rel, there are a few situations where it is necessary ←
15:37:17 <tomayac> ivan: I would not bind Lite exclusively to vocabularies like rnews and schema.org - we want a solution that is broader than that, right?
Ivan Herman: I would not bind Lite exclusively to vocabularies like rnews and schema.org - we want a solution that is broader than that, right? ←
15:37:38 <tomayac> ivan: For some chaining use cases, we need @rel - like when you want to link on "foaf:knows" to multiple people.
Ivan Herman: For some chaining use cases, we need @rel - like when you want to link on "foaf:knows" to multiple people. ←
15:38:06 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
15:38:06 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to ask about <data> @value as well
Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg, you wanted to ask about <data> @value as well ←
15:38:12 <tomayac> gkellogg: I don't think we want to over-complicate RDFa Lite - people seem to like the simplicity.
Gregg Kellogg: I don't think we want to over-complicate RDFa Lite - people seem to like the simplicity. ←
15:38:13 <ShaneM> q+ to say ICK about elements
Shane McCarron: q+ to say ICK about elements ←
15:38:28 <manu1> +1 to what Gregg said!
Manu Sporny: +1 to what Gregg said! ←
15:39:30 <manu1> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
15:39:35 <tomayac> gkellogg: @rel might be valid in a couple of use cases, but not worth adding it to Lite as we don't want to make Lite too complex. If people need @rel or @content, they can still use it and all RDFa processors will pick it up.
Gregg Kellogg: @rel might be valid in a couple of use cases, but not worth adding it to Lite as we don't want to make Lite too complex. If people need @rel or @content, they can still use it and all RDFa processors will pick it up. ←
15:39:54 <tomayac> manu: I am in favor of what Gregg said - let's not put @rel and @content in RDFa Lite unless someone demands that it be added.
Manu Sporny: I am in favor of what Gregg said - let's not put @rel and @content in RDFa Lite unless someone demands that it be added. ←
15:40:09 <tomayac> manu: the less it contains, the more powerful it is as an entry point for new authors
Manu Sporny: the less it contains, the more powerful it is as an entry point for new authors ←
15:40:13 <scor_> I agree with gkellogg: the RDFa 1.1 Lite document should be as simple and straight forward as possible
Stéphane Corlosquet: I agree with gkellogg: the RDFa 1.1 Lite document should be as simple and straight forward as possible ←
15:40:23 <tomayac> manu: We want to send a clear message with RDFa Lite - RDFa is easy to use - you only need 3 attributes for the basic markup and 5 attributes if you want to name entities and do vocabulary mixing.
Manu Sporny: We want to send a clear message with RDFa Lite - RDFa is easy to use - you only need 3 attributes for the basic markup and 5 attributes if you want to name entities and do vocabulary mixing. ←
15:40:48 <tomayac> manu1: your @rel chaining use case is still possible with RDFa Lite, Ivan - you just do <div property="foaf:knows" typeof="foaf:Person"> for every person you want to link to. Yes, it's more markup than @rel... but that's why @rel is an advanced feature.
Manu Sporny: your @rel chaining use case is still possible with RDFa Lite, Ivan - you just do <div property="foaf:knows" typeof="foaf:Person"> for every person you want to link to. Yes, it's more markup than @rel... but that's why @rel is an advanced feature. ←
15:41:18 <tomayac> manu: Only three RDFa Lite attributes are necessary for most of the schema.org and rnews use cases - that's a pretty powerful message.
Manu Sporny: Only three RDFa Lite attributes are necessary for most of the schema.org and rnews use cases - that's a pretty powerful message. ←
15:41:20 <manu1> ack ShaneM
Manu Sporny: ack ShaneM ←
15:41:20 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to say ICK about elements
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to say ICK about elements ←
15:41:29 <tomayac> ShaneM: I don't mind removing @rel from the Lite doc
Shane McCarron: I don't mind removing @rel from the Lite doc ←
15:45:05 <tomayac> ShaneM: I want to re-iterate that we don't do special processing of elements - we should not talk about <meta> at any point in the RDFa Lite document.
Shane McCarron: I want to re-iterate that we don't do special processing of elements - we should not talk about <meta> at any point in the RDFa Lite document. ←
15:45:28 <tomayac> ShaneM: there is nothing about doing Element processing in RDFa, the 'a' is for attribute
Shane McCarron: there is nothing about doing Element processing in RDFa, the 'a' is for attribute ←
15:45:41 <tomayac> ivan: this means i have to withdraw both suggestions, then - I'm ok with removing @rel and @content from RDFa Lite.
Ivan Herman: this means i have to withdraw both suggestions, then - I'm ok with removing @rel and @content from RDFa Lite. ←
15:47:25 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
15:47:48 <manu1> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
15:47:50 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
15:48:02 <tomayac> ivan: However, you can't put information in meta without using the @content attribute
Ivan Herman: However, you can't put information in meta without using the @content attribute ←
15:49:26 <tomayac> ivan: If i put myself in a webmaster's shoes, I'll hit the issue of @content eventually
Ivan Herman: If i put myself in a webmaster's shoes, I'll hit the issue of @content eventually ←
15:49:32 <manu1> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
15:49:42 <tomayac> ivan: What do i do if there's no mention of @content in the RDFa Lite document
Ivan Herman: What do i do if there's no mention of @content in the RDFa Lite document ←
15:50:02 <tomayac> manu1: I understand your point, Ivan
Manu Sporny: I understand your point, Ivan ←
15:50:19 <tomayac> manu: We need to be clear about the use cases that the majority of people will need to support and express how to address them with RDFa Lite
Manu Sporny: We need to be clear about the use cases that the majority of people will need to support and express how to address them with RDFa Lite ←
15:50:43 <tomayac> manu1: My point is that I don't think that @content is something that many people will need - and if they /do/ need it - then they can just use it and RDFa Processors will pick it up.
Manu Sporny: My point is that I don't think that @content is something that many people will need - and if they /do/ need it - then they can just use it and RDFa Processors will pick it up. ←
15:50:52 <tomayac> manu1: So, for the OGP examples - if Facebook needed it, they have documented it and their web masters are using it.
Manu Sporny: So, for the OGP examples - if Facebook needed it, they have documented it and their web masters are using it. ←
15:51:09 <tomayac> ivan: some examples exist in schema.org where they use link and meta
Ivan Herman: some examples exist in schema.org where they use link and meta ←
15:51:31 <tomayac> gkellogg: regarding content and facebook, i am seeing the concept abused in OGP - people are putting links in @content.
Gregg Kellogg: regarding content and facebook, i am seeing the concept abused in OGP - people are putting links in @content. ←
15:51:37 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
15:51:38 <tomayac> ivan: let's not go there now, we all agree that OGP usage isn't as ideal as it could be - but they made those decisions based on what they thought their authors would be comfortable with doing.
Ivan Herman: let's not go there now, we all agree that OGP usage isn't as ideal as it could be - but they made those decisions based on what they thought their authors would be comfortable with doing. ←
15:52:05 <tomayac> manu1: I still believe we leave @content and @rel out until someone says they need it
Manu Sporny: I still believe we leave @content and @rel out until someone says they need it ←
15:52:27 <tomayac> ivan: we can put it as an open issue in the document, we can add it later, as this is a first public working draft
Ivan Herman: we can put it as an open issue in the document, we can add it later, as this is a first public working draft ←
15:53:10 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Remove references to the @rel attribute from RDFa Lite.
PROPOSED: Remove references to the @rel attribute from RDFa Lite. ←
15:53:14 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:53:14 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:53:15 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
15:53:15 <scor_> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
15:53:15 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:53:16 <tomayac> tomayac: +1
Thomas Steiner: +1 ←
15:53:19 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:53:34 <manu1> RESOLVED: Remove references to the @rel attribute from RDFa Lite.
RESOLVED: Remove references to the @rel attribute from RDFa Lite. ←
15:54:15 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
15:54:24 <tomayac> manu: I'll add an open issue to the document, then.
Manu Sporny: I'll add an open issue to the document, then. ←
15:54:41 <tomayac> niklasl: Should RDFa Lite mention that it's dedicated for authors, and not implementors?
Niklas Lindström: Should RDFa Lite mention that it's dedicated for authors, and not implementors? ←
15:54:47 <tomayac> manu: i don't think so
Manu Sporny: i don't think so ←
15:55:14 <tomayac> manu1: it just comes across as a simple thing that authors can read. Implementers will know that the document doesn't have enough information in it for an implementation.
Manu Sporny: it just comes across as a simple thing that authors can read. Implementers will know that the document doesn't have enough information in it for an implementation. ←
15:55:24 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:55:32 <tomayac> manu1: the ones who care about the details, can go to RDFa Core
Manu Sporny: the ones who care about the details, can go to RDFa Core ←
15:55:32 <manu1> Topic: @rel and @property Symmetry
15:56:24 <tomayac> niklasl: Should @property do chaining if there is a typeof attribute? Why does it do it differently from @rel?
Niklas Lindström: Should @property do chaining if there is a typeof attribute? Why does it do it differently from @rel? ←
15:56:42 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof#Inconsistencies_in_the_.40property_chaining_rules is the case Niklas refers to
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof#Inconsistencies_in_the_.40property_chaining_rules is the case Niklas refers to ←
15:56:50 <tomayac> manu1: I think making @rel and @property do the same thing would create a large backwards incompatibility problem.
Manu Sporny: I think making @rel and @property do the same thing would create a large backwards incompatibility problem. ←
15:56:56 <tomayac> ivan: not sure about that
Ivan Herman: not sure about that ←
15:57:11 <tomayac> gkellogg: the use case is that if you want to have an anchor
Gregg Kellogg: the use case is that if you want to have an anchor ←
15:57:50 <tomayac> gkellogg: i think using @typeof to really communicate you want to use chaining is a good thing - doesn't break legacy markup.
Gregg Kellogg: i think using @typeof to really communicate you want to use chaining is a good thing - doesn't break legacy markup. ←
15:58:11 <tomayac> ivan: an empty typeof might solve this, but that's a bit of a hack.
Ivan Herman: an empty typeof might solve this, but that's a bit of a hack. ←
15:58:20 <tomayac> niklasl: an empty @typeof is kind of strange
Niklas Lindström: an empty @typeof is kind of strange ←
15:58:58 <tomayac> ivan: I think this is a question of balancing a very generic use case and being specific
Ivan Herman: I think this is a question of balancing a very generic use case and being specific ←
15:59:05 <ivan> <a property="ex:prop" href="http://example.org"><span property="dc:title">something</span></a>
Ivan Herman: <a property="ex:prop" href="http://example.org"><span property="dc:title">something</span></a> ←
15:59:53 <niklasl> <a rel="ex:prop" href="http://example.org" property="dc:title">something</a>
Niklas Lindström: <a rel="ex:prop" href="http://example.org" property="dc:title">something</a> ←
15:59:55 <tomayac> ivan: i would hate to lose that use case
Ivan Herman: i would hate to lose that use case ←
16:00:49 <ivan> <a property="foaf:homepage" href="...">lots of foaf things here</a>
Ivan Herman: <a property="foaf:homepage" href="...">lots of foaf things here</a> ←
16:01:25 <tomayac> niklasl: i have to problems with that - don't we want the chaining rules to be the same between @rel and @property?
Niklas Lindström: i have to problems with that - don't we want the chaining rules to be the same between @rel and @property? ←
16:01:25 <manu1> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
16:01:29 <manu1> q-
Manu Sporny: q- ←
16:01:36 <manu1> q+ to end the telco
Manu Sporny: q+ to end the telco ←
16:02:02 <ShaneM> for example in the RDFa Core 1.1 document we do this:
Shane McCarron: for example in the RDFa Core 1.1 document we do this: ←
16:02:02 <ShaneM> <dd rel="bibo:editor"><span typeof="foaf:Person"><a href="http://blog.halindrome.com" content="Shane McCarron" property="foaf:name" rel="foaf:homepage">Shane McCarron</a>, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. <a href="mailto:shane@aptest.com" rel="foaf:mbox">shane@aptest.com</a> </span></dd>
Shane McCarron: <dd rel="bibo:editor"><span typeof="foaf:Person"><a href="http://blog.halindrome.com" content="Shane McCarron" property="foaf:name" rel="foaf:homepage">Shane McCarron</a>, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. <a href="mailto:shane@aptest.com" rel="foaf:mbox">shane@aptest.com</a> </span></dd> ←
16:02:35 <tomayac> niklasl: @property and @rel are not symmetric
Niklas Lindström: @property and @rel are not symmetric ←
16:02:50 <tomayac> niklasl: when property behaves like rel, it doesn't really behave like rel
Niklas Lindström: when property behaves like rel, it doesn't really behave like rel ←
16:03:02 <ivan> to Shane: this will actually work like RDFa 1.0, because the apperence of @rel switches the old behaviour
Ivan Herman: to Shane: this will actually work like RDFa 1.0, because the apperence of @rel switches the old behaviour ←
16:03:43 <tomayac> niklasl: I am skeptical about how people will parse links with a lot of statements
Niklas Lindström: I am skeptical about how people will parse links with a lot of statements ←
16:04:03 <tomayac> manu1: I have a feeling that whenever someone uses more than three attributes on an element with RDFa, it's almost always going to be wrong... which is why we have debuggers.
Manu Sporny: I have a feeling that whenever someone uses more than three attributes on an element with RDFa, it's almost always going to be wrong... which is why we have debuggers. ←
16:04:17 <tomayac> ivan: Shane's use case is mostly for the hackers :P
Ivan Herman: Shane's use case is mostly for the hackers :P ←
16:04:33 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
16:04:55 <tomayac> manu1: This is the basic argument against RDFa... that when you start mixing and matching too many attributes on the same element, it becomes difficult to understand what subject applies to what object - using many attributes in one element causes complexity that you need a debugger to solve. It's a perfectly reasonable argument against RDFa and the response to it should be: If you're not an expert, don't put more than two RDFa attributes on a single element at a time.
Manu Sporny: This is the basic argument against RDFa... that when you start mixing and matching too many attributes on the same element, it becomes difficult to understand what subject applies to what object - using many attributes in one element causes complexity that you need a debugger to solve. It's a perfectly reasonable argument against RDFa and the response to it should be: If you're not an expert, don't put more than two RDFa attributes on a single element at a time. ←
16:04:59 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
16:04:59 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to end the telco
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to end the telco ←
16:05:05 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
16:05:25 <tomayac> gkellogg: If we were to do this again, @rel would probably not do implicit chaining
Gregg Kellogg: If we were to do this again, @rel would probably not do implicit chaining ←
16:05:36 <ShaneM> I agree - we need to be backward compatible for chaining of @rel - that's why we have the processing rules that we do today.
Shane McCarron: I agree - we need to be backward compatible for chaining of @rel - that's why we have the processing rules that we do today. ←
16:05:42 <tomayac> gkellogg: Yes, we need to preserve the behavior for backwards compatibility.
Gregg Kellogg: Yes, we need to preserve the behavior for backwards compatibility. ←
16:05:49 <tomayac> manu1: We're out of time for the call today. I won't be able to make the call next week - I'll be at W3Conf. Ivan may be able to run the call if he's available.
Manu Sporny: We're out of time for the call today. I won't be able to make the call next week - I'll be at W3Conf. Ivan may be able to run the call if he's available. ←
16:11:39 <Zakim> -Ivan
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:11:40 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
16:11:40 <Zakim> -manu1
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu1 ←
16:11:44 <Zakim> -scor
Zakim IRC Bot: -scor ←
16:11:50 <Zakim> -niklasl
Zakim IRC Bot: -niklasl ←
16:12:21 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
16:12:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, tomayac
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ShaneM, tomayac ←
16:12:30 <manu1> zakim, drop tomayac
Manu Sporny: zakim, drop tomayac ←
16:12:31 <Zakim> tomayac is being disconnected
Zakim IRC Bot: tomayac is being disconnected ←
16:12:31 <Zakim> -tomayac
Zakim IRC Bot: -tomayac ←
Formatted by CommonScribe