14:58:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-rdfa-irc ←
14:58:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:58:41 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
14:58:41 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 35 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 35 minutes ←
14:58:42 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
14:58:42 <trackbot> Date: 26 January 2012
15:01:00 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
15:01:04 <Zakim> + +1.540.961.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.961.aaaa ←
15:01:07 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:01:11 <Zakim> - +1.540.961.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.540.961.aaaa ←
15:01:25 <MacTed> Zakim, code?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, code? ←
15:01:25 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), MacTed ←
15:01:28 <Zakim> +??P17
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P17 ←
15:01:38 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P17
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P17 ←
15:01:38 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
15:01:52 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:01:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see OpenLink_Software, manu1
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see OpenLink_Software, manu1 ←
15:01:59 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
15:02:00 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
15:02:06 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
15:02:20 <Zakim> +??P24
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P24 ←
15:02:20 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:02:30 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
15:02:30 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P24
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P24 ←
15:02:46 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl; got it ←
15:02:52 <Zakim> +??P27
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27 ←
15:02:52 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:02:56 <ShaneM> zakim, I am ??P27
Shane McCarron: zakim, I am ??P27 ←
15:02:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see MacTed, manu1, Ivan, niklasl, ??P27
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MacTed, manu1, Ivan, niklasl, ??P27 ←
15:03:02 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it ←
15:03:33 <Zakim> +scor
Zakim IRC Bot: +scor ←
15:03:50 <Zakim> +??P32
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P32 ←
15:03:56 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P32
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P32 ←
15:03:56 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
15:04:12 <ivan> scribenick: ivan
(Scribe set to Ivan Herman)
15:04:19 <ivan> scribe: ivan
15:05:06 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Jan/0056.html
15:05:25 <ivan> manu: Any additions to the agenda?
Manu Sporny: Any additions to the agenda? ←
15:05:40 <ivan> ... Niklas raised the issue on invalid CURIEs in Facebook's Open Graph Protocol syntax.
... Niklas raised the issue on invalid CURIEs in Facebook's Open Graph Protocol syntax. ←
15:05:50 <ivan> ... We should discuss that
... We should discuss that ←
15:05:59 <ivan> ... Stephane also sent comments, they were editorial
... Stephane also sent comments, they were editorial ←
15:06:37 <ivan> ivan: One more agenda item - Should we explicitly disallow usage of xmlns: in RDFa Lite?
Ivan Herman: One more agenda item - Should we explicitly disallow usage of xmlns: in RDFa Lite? ←
15:06:45 <ivan> manu: Yes, added to the Agenda. Shane, where are we with RDFa Core 1.1? Is it ready for Last Call?
Manu Sporny: Yes, added to the Agenda. Shane, where are we with RDFa Core 1.1? Is it ready for Last Call? ←
15:07:36 <ivan> ShaneM: Niklas sent a reaction to the RDFa Core spec, I made some additional changes based on his comments
Shane McCarron: Niklas sent a reaction to the RDFa Core spec, I made some additional changes based on his comments ←
15:07:44 <ivan> ... if Niklas is satisfied then we are fine.
... if Niklas is satisfied then we are fine. ←
15:08:02 <ivan> ... Also, Manu asked that I add a note about the syntax for CURIEs possibly changing after Last Call if we change it now and screw something up. The intent on what we want to do for CURIEs is fairly clear, we just need to get the EBNF correct.
... Also, Manu asked that I add a note about the syntax for CURIEs possibly changing after Last Call if we change it now and screw something up. The intent on what we want to do for CURIEs is fairly clear, we just need to get the EBNF correct. ←
15:08:04 <Zakim> -niklasl
Zakim IRC Bot: -niklasl ←
15:08:34 <manu1> Topic: Using xmlns: in an RDFa Lite 1.1 Document
15:08:51 <ivan> Ivan: Should we specifically disallow the usage of xmlns: in an RDFa Lite 1.1 document?
Ivan Herman: Should we specifically disallow the usage of xmlns: in an RDFa Lite 1.1 document? ←
15:08:51 <ivan> manu: I do not think we need to say anything about it, we don't specifically disallow the other attributes you're not supposed to use. We specifically point out which RDFa attributes you can use and xmlns: is not in the set of allowable attributes.
Manu Sporny: I do not think we need to say anything about it, we don't specifically disallow the other attributes you're not supposed to use. We specifically point out which RDFa attributes you can use and xmlns: is not in the set of allowable attributes. ←
15:09:27 <ivan> ... Also, there is now validator.nu for HTML5/XHTML5 + RDFa 1.1/RDFa Lite 1.1 - the validator doesn't allow xmlns: in HTML5+RDFa 1.1 or HTML5+RDFa Lite 1.1, so I think we're fine.
... Also, there is now validator.nu for HTML5/XHTML5 + RDFa 1.1/RDFa Lite 1.1 - the validator doesn't allow xmlns: in HTML5+RDFa 1.1 or HTML5+RDFa Lite 1.1, so I think we're fine. ←
15:09:51 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
15:10:01 <Zakim> +??P24
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P24 ←
15:10:12 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P24
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P24 ←
15:10:12 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl; got it ←
15:11:11 <ShaneM> zakim, who is on the call?
Shane McCarron: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:11:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see MacTed, manu1, Ivan, ShaneM, scor, gkellogg, niklasl
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MacTed, manu1, Ivan, ShaneM, scor, gkellogg, niklasl ←
15:12:18 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's noisy? ←
15:12:29 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: MacTed (30%), niklasl (43%)
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: MacTed (30%), niklasl (43%) ←
15:12:38 <manu1> zakim, mute niklasl
Manu Sporny: zakim, mute niklasl ←
15:12:38 <Zakim> niklasl should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: niklasl should now be muted ←
15:12:40 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:12:40 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
15:12:52 <scor> q+
Stéphane Corlosquet: q+ ←
15:13:01 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
15:13:40 <manu1> q+ to point out the issue.
Manu Sporny: q+ to point out the issue. ←
15:13:58 <manu1> zakim, unmute niklasl
Manu Sporny: zakim, unmute niklasl ←
15:13:59 <Zakim> niklasl should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: niklasl should no longer be muted ←
15:14:14 <manu1> ack scor
Manu Sporny: ack scor ←
15:14:16 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about xmlns
Shane McCarron: q+ to talk about xmlns ←
15:19:02 <ShaneM> q-
Shane McCarron: q- ←
15:19:27 <ShaneM> I am not in favor of disallowing "xmlns:" explicitly, the document already implies that it is not allowed.
Shane McCarron: I am not in favor of disallowing "xmlns:" explicitly, the document already implies that it is not allowed. ←
15:19:27 <manu1> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
15:19:51 <ivan> manu: For example, we do not explicitly disallow @resource or @datatype... but they are not allowed in RDFa 1.1 Lite documents.
Manu Sporny: For example, we do not explicitly disallow @resource or @datatype... but they are not allowed in RDFa 1.1 Lite documents. ←
15:20:04 <ivan> ... therefore, why explicitly refer to xmlns:?
... therefore, why explicitly refer to xmlns:? ←
15:20:16 <ivan> ivan: I understand your point
Ivan Herman: I understand your point ←
15:20:30 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
15:20:37 <ivan> ack manu1
ack manu1 ←
15:20:37 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to point out the issue. and to
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to point out the issue. and to ←
15:20:38 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
15:20:43 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
15:21:05 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
15:21:06 <ivan> gkellogg: It is possible to have an XML-based host language that allows xmlns: and does not disallow using prefix
Gregg Kellogg: It is possible to have an XML-based host language that allows xmlns: and does not disallow using prefix ←
15:21:36 <ivan> manu: If xmlns: exists, then the core processor must still use it...
Manu Sporny: If xmlns: exists, then the core processor must still use it... ←
15:21:48 <ivan> ... If there is an @xmlns: value and it is used to set a prefix, then the document isn't an RDFa Lite 1.1 document anymore.
... If there is an @xmlns: value and it is used to set a prefix, then the document isn't an RDFa Lite 1.1 document anymore. ←
15:22:33 <ShaneM> q+
Shane McCarron: q+ ←
15:22:50 <ShaneM> q-
Shane McCarron: q- ←
15:23:02 <ShaneM> q+ to ask why we care of something can be labeled rdfa lite
Shane McCarron: q+ to ask why we care of something can be labeled rdfa lite ←
15:23:13 <ivan> manu: We could add a note to RDFa Lite 1.1 stating that using @xmlns in a Host Language is allowed as long as you don't use it to set a prefix?
Manu Sporny: We could add a note to RDFa Lite 1.1 stating that using @xmlns in a Host Language is allowed as long as you don't use it to set a prefix? ←
15:23:20 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:23:36 <ShaneM> q-
Shane McCarron: q- ←
15:24:12 <ivan> niklasl: RDFa Lite 1.1 does not speak about html5, but not using xmlns: is implied I believe.
Niklas Lindström: RDFa Lite 1.1 does not speak about html5, but not using xmlns: is implied I believe. ←
15:24:58 <ivan> manu: We can add a note explicitly that xmlns: is used in the host language then it is not to be used for prefix purposes in RDFa Lite.
Manu Sporny: We can add a note explicitly that xmlns: is used in the host language then it is not to be used for prefix purposes in RDFa Lite. ←
15:25:50 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The RDFa Lite 1.1 spec should state that if RDFa Lite 1.1 is used in an XML-based language, that the usage of the xmlns facility is allowed as long as it is not used to declare CURIE prefixes.
PROPOSED: The RDFa Lite 1.1 spec should state that if RDFa Lite 1.1 is used in an XML-based language, that the usage of the xmlns facility is allowed as long as it is not used to declare CURIE prefixes. ←
15:26:00 <ivan> +1
+1 ←
15:26:06 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:26:07 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
15:26:08 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
15:26:09 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:26:10 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:26:15 <ivan> RESOLVED: The RDFa Lite 1.1 spec should state that if RDFa Lite 1.1 is used in an XML-based language, that the usage of the xmlns facility is allowed as long as it is not used to declare CURIE prefixes.
RESOLVED: The RDFa Lite 1.1 spec should state that if RDFa Lite 1.1 is used in an XML-based language, that the usage of the xmlns facility is allowed as long as it is not used to declare CURIE prefixes. ←
15:26:28 <ivan> Topic: Updating the CURIE Syntax
15:26:45 <ivan> manu: There are two issues here, the first is that Facebook uses multiple colons in their CURIEs, which is not allowed. The second is author confusion based on a prefix being defined to "http" without their knowledge of that happening, thus causing CURIE expansion on something that is supposed to be a plain URL.
Manu Sporny: There are two issues here, the first is that Facebook uses multiple colons in their CURIEs, which is not allowed. The second is author confusion based on a prefix being defined to "http" without their knowledge of that happening, thus causing CURIE expansion on something that is supposed to be a plain URL. ←
15:26:49 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
15:26:56 <ivan> ... How we do this can be left to the mailing list discussion.
... How we do this can be left to the mailing list discussion. ←
15:27:04 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:27:15 <ivan> ... Shane's note is good enough to avoid last call again while we make sure that any changes we make today don't cause us to go through another Last Call.
... Shane's note is good enough to avoid last call again while we make sure that any changes we make today don't cause us to go through another Last Call. ←
15:27:20 <niklasl> This is of concern as well: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/125
Niklas Lindström: This is of concern as well: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/125 ←
15:27:53 <ivan> niklasl: Apart from the change the syntax for ':', I believe the RDF WG comment can also be taken care of
Niklas Lindström: Apart from the change the syntax for ':', I believe the RDF WG comment can also be taken care of ←
15:28:30 <ivan> ... We can also address the mixing of 'http' prefixes with http:/// URIs.
... We can also address the mixing of 'http' prefixes with http:/// URIs. ←
15:28:46 <ivan> ... We cannot do the replacement with SPARQL PN_NAME, we discussed that related to issue 90 last week.
... We cannot do the replacement with SPARQL PN_NAME, we discussed that related to ISSUE-90 last week. ←
15:29:06 <ivan> ... and we had examples where PN_NAME would cause a big problem - namely with DBPedia and schema.org.
... and we had examples where PN_NAME would cause a big problem - namely with DBPedia and schema.org. ←
15:29:40 <ivan> ... What Gavin was concerned about was that normal IRIs can be confused with CURIEs.
... What Gavin was concerned about was that normal IRIs can be confused with CURIEs. ←
15:30:17 <ivan> ... I looked at the different URIs, 52% use the authority plus path format with a double slash.
... I looked at the different URIs, 52% use the authority plus path format with a double slash. ←
15:31:00 <ivan> ... I am trying to figure out to see if we can also change the definition of CURIEs so that it disallows '//' at the start
... I am trying to figure out to see if we can also change the definition of CURIEs so that it disallows '//' at the start ←
15:31:23 <ivan> ... My belief that this will prevent a lot of potential bad markup in the case that a scheme IRI is defined.
... My belief that this will prevent a lot of potential bad markup in the case that a scheme IRI is defined. ←
15:31:39 <ivan> ... because these types of curies will not be seen as URIs with the CURIE syntax that I have outlined.
... because these types of curies will not be seen as URIs with the CURIE syntax that I have outlined. ←
15:31:54 <ivan> ... and I have not seen any use for a curie with a '//' in the reference, either theoretical or real.
... and I have not seen any use for a curie with a '//' in the reference, either theoretical or real. ←
15:31:59 <manu1> q+ to support not allowing "//" starting CURIEs.
Manu Sporny: q+ to support not allowing "//" starting CURIEs. ←
15:32:26 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
15:32:26 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to support not allowing "//" starting CURIEs.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to support not allowing "//" starting CURIEs. ←
15:32:37 <ivan> manu1: That was a convincing argument, I think we should make the "//" and ":" changes that Niklas proposes.
Manu Sporny: That was a convincing argument, I think we should make the "//" and ":" changes that Niklas proposes. ←
15:32:54 <ivan> ... The concern we had with Gavin's approach is that it changed too much
... The concern we had with Gavin's approach is that it changed too much ←
15:33:14 <ivan> ... what Niklas is proposing are minor tweaks in the CURIE definition, we know exactly why we're making these changes vs. the PN_NAME changes where we couldn't grasp the rammifications of the change.
... what Niklas is proposing are minor tweaks in the CURIE definition, we know exactly why we're making these changes vs. the PN_NAME changes where we couldn't grasp the rammifications of the change. ←
15:33:35 <ivan> ... The data that Niklas is referring to is also very convincing. If we can prevent 52% of URI schemes from being accidentally overridden by prefix declarations, then we should do that.
... The data that Niklas is referring to is also very convincing. If we can prevent 52% of URI schemes from being accidentally overridden by prefix declarations, then we should do that. ←
15:34:22 <ivan> q?
q? ←
15:34:22 <ShaneM> q+
Shane McCarron: q+ ←
15:34:26 <ivan> ack ShaneM
ack ShaneM ←
15:35:01 <ivan> ShaneM: While looking at the proposal, I was reminded that the tag required us to add a note into the document:
Shane McCarron: While looking at the proposal, I was reminded that the tag required us to add a note into the document: ←
15:35:06 <ShaneM> When revising a language that has historically permitted URIs in certain locations (e.g., as values of a specific attribute), to ensure backward compatibility, language designers SHOULD NOT permit CURIEs (or safe_curies) as the datatype in the corresponding location, but SHOULD provide a new mechanism (e.g., a new attribute).
Shane McCarron: When revising a language that has historically permitted URIs in certain locations (e.g., as values of a specific attribute), to ensure backward compatibility, language designers SHOULD NOT permit CURIEs (or safe_curies) as the datatype in the corresponding location, but SHOULD provide a new mechanism (e.g., a new attribute). ←
15:35:07 <ivan> ... We put that into the CURIE spec.
... We put that into the CURIE spec. ←
15:35:17 <ivan> ... We failed to put that in the RDFa Core spec.
... We failed to put that in the RDFa Core spec. ←
15:35:38 <manu1> q+ to address TAG note.
Manu Sporny: q+ to address TAG note. ←
15:35:44 <ivan> ... I don't feel strongly about this change, just pointing that out.
... I don't feel strongly about this change, just pointing that out. ←
15:35:57 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
15:36:08 <ivan> ... I maintain that the author cannot put a scheme into an RDFa attribute that will be misinterpreted in future.
... I maintain that the author cannot put a scheme into an RDFa attribute that will be misinterpreted in future. ←
15:36:22 <ivan> manu: What you say that the current algorithm is deterministic.
Manu Sporny: What you say that the current algorithm is deterministic. ←
15:36:33 <ivan> ... it never will be misinterpreted.
... it never will be misinterpreted. ←
15:36:52 <ivan> ShaneM: It will not be misinterpreted in a way that the doc author did not mean it.
Shane McCarron: It will not be misinterpreted in a way that the doc author did not mean it. ←
15:37:04 <ivan> ack manu
ack manu ←
15:37:04 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to address TAG note.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to address TAG note. ←
15:37:15 <ivan> manu: We should not put that into the RDFa spec, it's unnecessary.
Manu Sporny: We should not put that into the RDFa spec, it's unnecessary. ←
15:37:28 <ivan> ... We do not allow CURIEs in @href or @src
... We do not allow CURIEs in @href or @src ←
15:38:23 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:38:44 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
15:39:20 <ivan> niklasl: ShaneM , you say that document author's CURIE will never be misinterpreted as an IRI?
Niklas Lindström: ShaneM , you say that document author's CURIE will never be misinterpreted as an IRI? ←
15:39:22 <ivan> ... that is true
... that is true ←
15:39:39 <ivan> ... but if somebody puts an IRI, then a prefix could overshadow it.
... but if somebody puts an IRI, then a prefix could overshadow it. ←
15:39:40 <manu1> q+ to say this is a slightly different issue.
Manu Sporny: q+ to say this is a slightly different issue. ←
15:40:04 <ivan> ShaneM: but I control those prefix definitions.
Shane McCarron: but I control those prefix definitions. ←
15:40:22 <ivan> niklasl: The unsettling bit to me is where people do not control the whole document, they don't control the prefix definitions.
Niklas Lindström: The unsettling bit to me is where people do not control the whole document, they don't control the prefix definitions. ←
15:40:49 <ivan> ... Internal to some companies, this is true as well - the markup can come from someone like Facebook.
... Internal to some companies, this is true as well - the markup can come from someone like Facebook. ←
15:41:06 <niklasl> Here's an example of what could happen based on a proprietary URI scheme used internally in a company: https://gist.github.com/1683227
Niklas Lindström: Here's an example of what could happen based on a proprietary URI scheme used internally in a company: https://gist.github.com/1683227 ←
15:41:07 <ivan> ... Those of the sorts of things we're trying to prevent from happening.
... Those of the sorts of things we're trying to prevent from happening. ←
15:41:24 <ShaneM> q+
Shane McCarron: q+ ←
15:41:26 <ivan> ... Some people have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot and we could prevent this if we just adopted the no '//' at the beginning of references rule.
... Some people have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot and we could prevent this if we just adopted the no '//' at the beginning of references rule. ←
15:41:32 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
15:42:13 <manu1> Ivan: I don't know if this is necessary... if somebody that uses a string that looks like a CURIE or URI... the RDFa Processor will generate the same triples, but on different paths.
Ivan Herman: I don't know if this is necessary... if somebody that uses a string that looks like a CURIE or URI... the RDFa Processor will generate the same triples, but on different paths. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:42:49 <manu1> Ivan: We have been losing an enormous amount of energy and time on this... the changes in the core document is minimal if we allow ':' and/or disallow '//'
Ivan Herman: We have been losing an enormous amount of energy and time on this... the changes in the core document is minimal if we allow ':' and/or disallow '//' [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:43:12 <manu1> Ivan: We still refer to the RFC for the details. I propose that we should make these changes and move ahead.
Ivan Herman: We still refer to the RFC for the details. I propose that we should make these changes and move ahead. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:43:16 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
15:43:16 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say this is a slightly different issue.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to say this is a slightly different issue. ←
15:43:43 <ivan> manu: It is important to note is that an RDFa Processor doesn't misinterpret what is written, but an author could misinterpret what they've written. We should try to prevent that from happening, if at all possible.
Manu Sporny: It is important to note is that an RDFa Processor doesn't misinterpret what is written, but an author could misinterpret what they've written. We should try to prevent that from happening, if at all possible. ←
15:43:54 <ivan> ... This is about protecting document authors from themeselves.
... This is about protecting document authors from themeselves. ←
15:44:10 <ShaneM> q-
Shane McCarron: q- ←
15:44:30 <ivan> ... If we make no change, then the danger is that 52% of the URI schemes already out there could trigger this issue if a prefix is defined that overlaps with the URI scheme.
... If we make no change, then the danger is that 52% of the URI schemes already out there could trigger this issue if a prefix is defined that overlaps with the URI scheme. ←
15:44:56 <ivan> ... If we make the change, we will prevent the authoring mistakes. There is no down-side other than people can't use '//' to start out a reference... and we have no use case that has come up over the past six years that requires that people need to be able to do that.
... If we make the change, we will prevent the authoring mistakes. There is no down-side other than people can't use '//' to start out a reference... and we have no use case that has come up over the past six years that requires that people need to be able to do that. ←
15:45:11 <ShaneM> For the record I note that I agree with Niklas, and the risk is far higher than just schemes that have an authority section. consider 'widget'. 'widget:foo' is a CURIE, but there is a widget scheme out there that has no authority section anyway. So it will be confused.
Shane McCarron: For the record I note that I agree with Niklas, and the risk is far higher than just schemes that have an authority section. consider 'widget'. 'widget:foo' is a CURIE, but there is a widget scheme out there that has no authority section anyway. So it will be confused. ←
15:45:14 <MacTed> Can we get proposal as Ivan worded?
Ted Thibodeau: Can we get proposal as Ivan worded? ←
15:45:28 <MacTed> Let's resolve and move on...
Ted Thibodeau: Let's resolve and move on... ←
15:45:39 <ShaneM> Here's my wording in the spec: <p class="note">The working group is currently examining the productions
Shane McCarron: Here's my wording in the spec: <p class="note">The working group is currently examining the productions ←
15:45:39 <ShaneM> for CURIE below in light of recent comments received from the RDF
Shane McCarron: for CURIE below in light of recent comments received from the RDF ←
15:45:39 <ShaneM> Working Group and members of the RDF Web Applications Working
Shane McCarron: Working Group and members of the RDF Web Applications Working ←
15:45:39 <ShaneM> Group. It is possible that there will be minor changes to the production
Shane McCarron: Group. It is possible that there will be minor changes to the production ←
15:45:39 <ShaneM> rules below in the near future, and that these changes will be
Shane McCarron: rules below in the near future, and that these changes will be ←
15:45:41 <ShaneM> backward <em>incompatible</em>. However, any such incompatibility will be
Shane McCarron: backward <em>incompatible</em>. However, any such incompatibility will be ←
15:45:42 <ShaneM> limited to edge cases.</p>
Shane McCarron: limited to edge cases.</p> ←
15:46:13 <ivan> PROPOSED: Make the change on the CURIE definition in RDFa Core 1.1, according to Niklas' e-mail, allow for ':' and prevent the use of '//' in the reference portion of a CURIE.
PROPOSED: Make the change on the CURIE definition in RDFa Core 1.1, according to Niklas' e-mail, allow for ':' and prevent the use of '//' in the reference portion of a CURIE. ←
15:46:21 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:46:23 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:46:23 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
15:46:27 <ivan> +1
+1 ←
15:46:29 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:46:39 <ShaneM> +1 if there is actually BNF
Shane McCarron: +1 if there is actually BNF ←
15:46:40 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
15:46:43 <ivan> RESOLVED: Make the change on the CURIE definition in RDFa Core 1.1, according to Niklas' e-mail, allow for ':' and prevent the use of '//' in the reference portion of a CURIE.
RESOLVED: Make the change on the CURIE definition in RDFa Core 1.1, according to Niklas' e-mail, allow for ':' and prevent the use of '//' in the reference portion of a CURIE. ←
15:47:21 <niklasl> Here's the BNF - Option C at the end of: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Jan/0067.html
Niklas Lindström: Here's the BNF - Option C at the end of: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Jan/0067.html ←
15:47:33 <niklasl> curie ::= [ [ prefix ] ':' ] reference
Niklas Lindström: curie ::= [ [ prefix ] ':' ] reference ←
15:47:48 <niklasl> reference ::= ( ipath-absolute / ipath-rootless / ipath-empty ) [ "?" iquery ] [ "#" ifragment ]
Niklas Lindström: reference ::= ( ipath-absolute / ipath-rootless / ipath-empty ) [ "?" iquery ] [ "#" ifragment ] ←
15:48:21 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:48:21 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
15:48:27 <niklasl> .. definitions from [RFC3987]
Niklas Lindström: .. definitions from [RFC3987] ←
15:49:50 <ivan> Topic: Last Call Publication
15:49:50 <ivan> Manu: Any reason we shouldn't take RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call?
Manu Sporny: Any reason we shouldn't take RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call? ←
15:51:30 <ivan> No opposition to Last Call.
No opposition to Last Call. ←
15:51:40 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Take RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call with a publication date of January 31st 2012, with a Last Call Duration of 3 weeks, ending on February 21st 2012.
PROPOSED: Take RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call with a publication date of January 31st 2012, with a Last Call Duration of 3 weeks, ending on February 21st 2012. ←
15:51:53 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:51:54 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
15:51:54 <ivan> +1
+1 ←
15:51:56 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
15:51:56 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:51:56 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:51:57 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:52:33 <manu1> RESOLVED: Take RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call with a publication date of January 31st 2012, with a Last Call Duration of 3 weeks, ending on February 21st 2012.
RESOLVED: Take RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call with a publication date of January 31st 2012, with a Last Call Duration of 3 weeks, ending on February 21st 2012. ←
15:52:31 <scor> ShaneM, you will review my changes before sending to to LC right?
Stéphane Corlosquet: ShaneM, you will review my changes before sending to to LC right? ←
15:52:31 <ivan> Manu: Stephane, I'm sure Shane will, but your changes were editorial, so we don't need to make them right now... but I'm sure Shane will make them anyway.
Manu Sporny: Stephane, I'm sure Shane will, but your changes were editorial, so we don't need to make them right now... but I'm sure Shane will make them anyway. ←
15:53:33 <manu1> Topic: RDFa 1.1 Implementations
15:52:31 <ivan> Manu: Who is planning to do an RDFa 1.1 implementation?
Manu Sporny: Who is planning to do an RDFa 1.1 implementation? ←
15:53:53 <gkellogg> I already have an implementation in Ruby
Gregg Kellogg: I already have an implementation in Ruby ←
15:54:01 <MacTed> "implementation" means so many things
Ted Thibodeau: "implementation" means so many things ←
15:54:06 <niklasl> I have started on one in Clojure
Niklas Lindström: I have started on one in Clojure ←
15:54:17 <ShaneM> I am planning to update SPREAD (Perl)
Shane McCarron: I am planning to update SPREAD (Perl) ←
15:55:03 <gkellogg> We really need a JavaScript implementation, though.
Gregg Kellogg: We really need a JavaScript implementation, though. ←
15:55:50 <ivan> manu: do people feel they can finish their implementations before April?
Manu Sporny: do people feel they can finish their implementations before April? ←
15:55:57 <niklasl> Gregg, I could try to run it through ClojureScript. :) But I believe that Antonio Garotte has one in the making?
Niklas Lindström: Gregg, I could try to run it through ClojureScript. :) But I believe that Antonio Garotte has one in the making? ←
15:57:21 <niklasl> My rough clojure work is at https://github.com/niklasl/clj-rdfa btw; note that it's still quite incomplete)
Niklas Lindström: My rough clojure work is at https://github.com/niklasl/clj-rdfa btw; note that it's still quite incomplete) ←
15:57:21 <ivan> Manu: So we have 6 commitments to implementations of RDFa 1.1 - that's far more than the 2 necessary (which are already done - Ivan's and Gregg's), so we're in good shape for the Candidate Recommendation phase.
Manu Sporny: So we have 6 commitments to implementations of RDFa 1.1 - that's far more than the 2 necessary (which are already done - Ivan's and Gregg's), so we're in good shape for the Candidate Recommendation phase. ←
15:58:17 <ShaneM> q+
Shane McCarron: q+ ←
15:58:33 <manu1> ack shanem
Manu Sporny: ack shanem ←
16:00:06 <manu1> ack shanem
Manu Sporny: ack shanem ←
16:01:35 <Zakim> -ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←
16:01:39 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
16:01:43 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
16:02:01 <Zakim> -scor
Zakim IRC Bot: -scor ←
16:02:31 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended ←
16:02:33 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.540.961.aaaa, manu1, Ivan, MacTed, niklasl, ShaneM, scor, gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.540.961.aaaa, manu1, Ivan, MacTed, niklasl, ShaneM, scor, gkellogg ←
Formatted by CommonScribe