13:18:30 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-rdfa-irc ←
13:18:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:18:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
13:18:34 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 42 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 42 minutes ←
13:18:35 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:18:35 <trackbot> Date: 26 April 2012
14:00:05 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 41 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
14:00:13 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
14:00:20 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P5
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P5 ←
14:00:21 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
14:00:32 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:00:41 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:00:43 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:01:14 <Zakim> +??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11 ←
14:01:16 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P11
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P11 ←
14:01:16 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
14:01:16 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P11
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P11 ←
14:01:23 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl; got it ←
14:01:24 <Zakim> sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??P11'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??P11' ←
14:01:29 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P15
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P15 ←
14:01:38 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
14:01:54 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
14:02:41 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
14:02:53 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
14:02:54 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
14:02:56 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:03:06 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
14:04:20 <Zakim> +McCarron
Zakim IRC Bot: +McCarron ←
14:04:29 <Zakim> +??P26
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P26 ←
14:04:45 <Steven_> zakim, I am ??P26
Steven Pemberton: zakim, I am ??P26 ←
14:04:45 <Zakim> +Steven_; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven_; got it ←
14:06:35 <ShaneM> zakim, who is here?
Shane McCarron: zakim, who is here? ←
14:06:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see gkellogg, Ivan, niklasl, manu1, ??P13, MacTed (muted), McCarron, Steven_
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see gkellogg, Ivan, niklasl, manu1, ??P13, MacTed (muted), McCarron, Steven_ ←
14:06:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see ShaneM, Steven_, niklasl, MacTed, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, ivan, manu, manu1, gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see ShaneM, Steven_, niklasl, MacTed, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, ivan, manu, manu1, gkellogg ←
14:06:44 <ShaneM> zakim, McCarron is ShaneM
Shane McCarron: zakim, McCarron is ShaneM ←
14:06:44 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it ←
14:10:20 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:10:20 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
14:10:45 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Apr/0061.html
14:10:55 <ivan> scribenick: ivan
(Scribe set to Ivan Herman)
14:11:01 <ivan> scribe: ivan
14:11:05 <ivan> manu: Any changes to the agenda?
Manu Sporny: Any changes to the agenda? ←
14:13:37 <niklasl> We should discuss the CURIE regex in the RDFa Core spec - it's not quite correct.
Niklas Lindström: We should discuss the CURIE regex in the RDFa Core spec - it's not quite correct. ←
14:13:37 <niklasl> Issue: fix regexp in the xsd:simpleType definition of CURIE (it's too lax, matching e.g. "pfx://abc")
ISSUE: fix regexp in the xsd:simpleType definition of CURIE (it's too lax, matching e.g. "pfx://abc") ←
14:13:37 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-138 - Fix regexp in the xsd:simpleType definition of CURIE (it's too lax, matching e.g. "pfx://abc") ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/138/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-138 - Fix regexp in the xsd:simpleType definition of CURIE (it's too lax, matching e.g. "pfx://abc") ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/138/edit . ←
14:13:56 <manu1> Topic: High-level Overview of May and June re: RDFa 1.1
14:15:47 <ivan> manu: Our goal during this call is to try to suggest to the Director that RDFa 1.1 should be moved to the Proposed Recommendation (PR) status - as long as the issues for today do not create any problems.
Manu Sporny: Our goal during this call is to try to suggest to the Director that RDFa 1.1 should be moved to the Proposed Recommendation (PR) status - as long as the issues for today do not create any problems. ←
14:15:59 <ivan> … We want to make an announcement at SemTechBiz in San Francisco in early June 2012 on the REC publications.
… We want to make an announcement at SemTechBiz in San Francisco in early June 2012 on the REC publications. ←
14:16:06 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
14:16:15 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:16:30 <manu1> ivan: To make it very clear - this means that we have to publish the PR in a week.
Ivan Herman: To make it very clear - this means that we have to publish the PR in a week. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:17:16 <manu1> ivan: Procedural description - we have to have a transition call - I have already started to find a time to do that (next Wednesday, probably). We have to start the process of members voting - at the minimum, they are given 4 weeks.
Ivan Herman: Procedural description - we have to have a transition call - I have already started to find a time to do that (next Wednesday, probably). We have to start the process of members voting - at the minimum, they are given 4 weeks. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:17:40 <manu1> ivan: If we start the process formally, on Thursday, it will end on the Thursday before the conference. If there are no objections during the voting period, moving to REC becomes an automatic thing.
Ivan Herman: If we start the process formally, on Thursday, it will end on the Thursday before the conference. If there are no objections during the voting period, moving to REC becomes an automatic thing. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:17:54 <manu1> ivan: We can publish the REC the Tuesday after... this is a very tight schedule.
Ivan Herman: We can publish the REC the Tuesday after... this is a very tight schedule. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:18:28 <manu1> ivan: We can shift a little bit because the conference ends on Thursday, we could formally announce on Thursday... but that's not ideal - let's try for Tuesday of the conference.
Ivan Herman: We can shift a little bit because the conference ends on Thursday, we could formally announce on Thursday... but that's not ideal - let's try for Tuesday of the conference. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:18:39 <ivan> manu1: any question on the process or objections on proceeding with this goal in mind?
Manu Sporny: any question on the process or objections on proceeding with this goal in mind? ←
14:18:51 <ivan> No objections or questions.
No objections or questions. ←
14:18:54 <manu1> Topic: Exiting Candidate Recommendation Phase
14:19:19 <ivan> manu1: We have some editorial issues and some open issues that we should discuss today that came up during the Candidate Recommendation period.
Manu Sporny: We have some editorial issues and some open issues that we should discuss today that came up during the Candidate Recommendation period. ←
14:19:19 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/open
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/open ←
14:19:30 <ivan> manu1: Let's deal with what affects the REC-track documents first
Manu Sporny: Let's deal with what affects the REC-track documents first ←
14:19:32 <manu1> Subtopic: ISSUE-138: CURIE regex is not restrictive enough (editorial change)
14:19:38 <ivan> issue-138?
14:19:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-138 -- Fix regexp in the xsd:simpleType definition of CURIE (it's too lax, matching e.g. "pfx://abc") -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-138 -- Fix regexp in the xsd:simpleType definition of CURIE (it's too lax, matching e.g. "pfx://abc") -- open ←
14:19:38 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/138
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/138 ←
14:20:14 <ivan> manu1: Niklas, do you have an alternative regex?
Manu Sporny: Niklas, do you have an alternative regex? ←
14:20:26 <ivan> … What we could do is to resolve to fix the regex and come up with the regex later - it's pretty clear why we need to change this - to prevent URLs like "http://" from accidentally being detected as a CURIE.
… What we could do is to resolve to fix the regex and come up with the regex later - it's pretty clear why we need to change this - to prevent URLs like "http://" from accidentally being detected as a CURIE. ←
14:20:59 <niklasl> Current CURIE simpleType pattern is: (([\i-[:]][\c-[:]]*)?:)?[^\s]+ - which doesn't prevent "://" in a URL after the prefix
Niklas Lindström: Current CURIE simpleType pattern is: (([\i-[:]][\c-[:]]*)?:)?[^\s]+ - which doesn't prevent "://" in a URL after the prefix ←
14:21:12 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
14:21:15 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:21:33 <manu1> ivan: Where does this regex come from? Does it come from the xsd:simpleType definition?
Ivan Herman: Where does this regex come from? Does it come from the xsd:simpleType definition? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:22:00 <ivan> shane: No, it doesn't - it's something in RDFa Core 1.1 that we defined for CURIEs.
Shane McCarron: No, it doesn't - it's something in RDFa Core 1.1 that we defined for CURIEs. ←
14:22:31 <ivan> ShaneM: it is the definition in A.1, which is informative
Shane McCarron: it is the definition in A.1, which is informative ←
14:22:38 <ivan> … i.e., we can change it - it's editorial...
… i.e., we can change it - it's editorial... ←
14:23:17 <ivan> ShaneM: it is too lax right now, and what is the problem with that?
Shane McCarron: it is too lax right now, and what is the problem with that? ←
14:23:45 <ivan> manu1: It allows "://", which we decided to not allow in RDFa 1.1 to ensure that URLs aren't accidentally interpreted as CURIEs.
Manu Sporny: It allows "://", which we decided to not allow in RDFa 1.1 to ensure that URLs aren't accidentally interpreted as CURIEs. ←
14:23:52 <ivan> ShaneM: Oh, right! Yes, we should fix this.
Shane McCarron: Oh, right! Yes, we should fix this. ←
14:24:04 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Fix the regular expression for the definition of a CURIE in RDFa Core 1.1, Appendix A.1 to not allow "://" as a valid CURIE.
PROPOSED: Fix the regular expression for the definition of a CURIE in RDFa Core 1.1, Appendix A.1 to not allow "://" as a valid CURIE. ←
14:24:08 <ivan> ivan: +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:24:08 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:24:10 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:24:11 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:24:18 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
14:24:18 <Steven_> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:24:35 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:24:39 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
14:24:42 <manu1> RESOLVED: Fix the regular expression for the definition of a CURIE in RDFa Core 1.1, Appendix A.1 to not allow "://" as a valid CURIE.
RESOLVED: Fix the regular expression for the definition of a CURIE in RDFa Core 1.1, Appendix A.1 to not allow "://" as a valid CURIE. ←
14:25:02 <manu1> Subtopic: ISSUE-136: RDFa Lite 1.1 Document Conformance regarding @href/@src and @rel/@rev
14:25:07 <ivan> issue-136?
14:25:07 <trackbot> ISSUE-136 -- RDFa Lite 1.1 Conformance Section - host language attributes -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-136 -- RDFa Lite 1.1 Conformance Section - host language attributes -- open ←
14:25:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/136
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/136 ←
14:25:08 <manu1> Next up: https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/136
Manu Sporny: Next up: https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/136 ←
14:25:33 <ivan> manu: Alex Milowski brought it up - RDFa Lite 1.1 conformance concerning @href/@src and @rel/@rev
Manu Sporny: Alex Milowski brought it up - RDFa Lite 1.1 conformance concerning @href/@src and @rel/@rev ←
14:25:42 <ivan> … We need to do some minor editorial changes
… We need to do some minor editorial changes ←
14:25:47 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
14:25:51 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:26:28 <manu1> ivan: If you follow the thread, I have some text which is relatively obvious for adding a reference to @href and @src - there is the @rel/@rev issue. I'm not sure how to address that.
Ivan Herman: If you follow the thread, I have some text which is relatively obvious for adding a reference to @href and @src - there is the @rel/@rev issue. I'm not sure how to address that. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:26:34 <gkellogg> Proposed text from Ivan: It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, in case the Host Language authorizes their usage. The usage of rel and rev, if authorized by the Host Language, should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as defined by the Host Language.
Gregg Kellogg: Proposed text from Ivan: It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, in case the Host Language authorizes their usage. The usage of rel and rev, if authorized by the Host Language, should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as defined by the Host Language. ←
14:27:00 <manu1> ivan: If somebody uses @rel with one of those attributes not meant for RDFa - they are conformant RDFa Lite.
Ivan Herman: If somebody uses @rel with one of those attributes not meant for RDFa - they are conformant RDFa Lite. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:31:23 <MacTed> "It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, when the Host Language authorizes their usage. However, even if authorized by the Host Language, the usage of rel and rev should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as defined by the Host Language."
Ted Thibodeau: "It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, when the Host Language authorizes their usage. However, even if authorized by the Host Language, the usage of rel and rev should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as defined by the Host Language." ←
14:31:37 <ivan> Discussion ensuring that proposal wording doesn't tie us to specific spec text - editor's decision on what works.
Discussion ensuring that proposal wording doesn't tie us to specific spec text - editor's decision on what works. ←
14:31:53 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:31:53 <Zakim> MacTed was not muted, MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed was not muted, MacTed ←
14:33:09 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Update the RDFa Lite 1.1 specification using something to the effect of: "It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, when the Host Language authorizes their usage. However, even if authorized by the Host Language, the usage of rel and rev should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as defined by the Host Language."
PROPOSED: Update the RDFa Lite 1.1 specification using something to the effect of: "It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, when the Host Language authorizes their usage. However, even if authorized by the Host Language, the usage of rel and rev should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as defined by the Host Language." ←
14:33:22 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:33:23 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:33:23 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
14:33:24 <ivan> ivan: +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:33:26 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:33:26 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
14:33:39 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:33:50 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:33:54 <manu1> RESOLVED: Update the RDFa Lite 1.1 specification using something to the effect of: "It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, when the Host Language authorizes their usage. However, even if authorized by the Host Language, the usage of rel and rev should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as defined by the Host Language."
RESOLVED: Update the RDFa Lite 1.1 specification using something to the effect of: "It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, when the Host Language authorizes their usage. However, even if authorized by the Host Language, the usage of rel and rev should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as defined by the Host Language." ←
14:33:59 <scor> It seems these pure editorial changes were not made to RDFa Lite yet: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0002.html - we might not need to straw poll on them, but I want to double check.
Stéphane Corlosquet: It seems these pure editorial changes were not made to RDFa Lite yet: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0002.html - we might not need to straw poll on them, but I want to double check. ←
14:33:59 <ivan> manu1: Yes, I do intend on merging those editorial changes into the RDFa Lite document.
Manu Sporny: Yes, I do intend on merging those editorial changes into the RDFa Lite document. ←
14:34:15 <manu1> Subtopic: ISSUE-134: RDFa Core 1.1, Section 7.5, Step 11 wording ambiguity
14:34:21 <ivan> issue-134?
14:34:21 <trackbot> ISSUE-134 -- Section 7.5, Step 11 Ambiguity in RDFa Core 1.1 -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-134 -- Section 7.5, Step 11 Ambiguity in RDFa Core 1.1 -- open ←
14:34:21 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/134
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/134 ←
14:34:37 <manu1> Next up is: https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/134
Manu Sporny: Next up is: https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/134 ←
14:35:40 <scor> q+
Stéphane Corlosquet: q+ ←
14:35:50 <ivan> manu1: we could say that 'while the wording could be more clear, we have four interoperable implementations already and therefore we should not change it at this point since the wording resulted in interoperable implementations'. We are also very concerned about changing the wording and introducing a bug at this late in the game.
Manu Sporny: we could say that 'while the wording could be more clear, we have four interoperable implementations already and therefore we should not change it at this point since the wording resulted in interoperable implementations'. We are also very concerned about changing the wording and introducing a bug at this late in the game. ←
14:35:51 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
14:35:54 <manu1> ack scor
Manu Sporny: ack scor ←
14:36:02 <ivan> scor: These changes are not substantive, why not make them?
Stéphane Corlosquet: These changes are not substantive, why not make them? ←
14:36:32 <ivan> manu: the danger is that we would make changes and introduce bugs, or make changes and introduce confusion. It's clear that using the current spec results in interoperable implementations.
Manu Sporny: the danger is that we would make changes and introduce bugs, or make changes and introduce confusion. It's clear that using the current spec results in interoperable implementations. ←
14:37:07 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:37:32 <manu1> ivan: If I want to be fair, your argumentation doesn't hold, Manu - all four implementations are from people in this WG, so there may be some pre-conceived knowledge that all of us used. Alex is not in this group and has a different reading on the spec.
Ivan Herman: If I want to be fair, your argumentation doesn't hold, Manu - all four implementations are from people in this WG, so there may be some pre-conceived knowledge that all of us used. Alex is not in this group and has a different reading on the spec. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:37:36 <manu1> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
14:38:27 <manu1> ivan: Alex is the first person that implemented this w/o being a part of the discussion. You could refute the argument you're using that way. That being said, I am very worried about making changes to the processing rules at this point. We could address Alex's issue at this point, but it becomes a bit scary to make this change at this point.
Ivan Herman: Alex is the first person that implemented this w/o being a part of the discussion. You could refute the argument you're using that way. That being said, I am very worried about making changes to the processing rules at this point. We could address Alex's issue at this point, but it becomes a bit scary to make this change at this point. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:38:28 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
14:38:29 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:38:55 <manu1> MacTed: Could we make this change as a note?
Ted Thibodeau: Could we make this change as a note? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:38:58 <manu1> ivan: Not really, we'd still be modifying the processing rules in a normative way.
Ivan Herman: Not really, we'd still be modifying the processing rules in a normative way. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:39:30 <ivan> manu1: To be clear, when I implemented my processor, I implemented the processing steps literally - meaning, I did exactly what the processing steps said and my implementation worked out.
Manu Sporny: To be clear, when I implemented my processor, I implemented the processing steps literally - meaning, I did exactly what the processing steps said and my implementation worked out. ←
14:39:43 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
14:39:43 <ivan> … but ivan is right, the people in the group have more knowledge of the intent that somebody that hasn't been here for the discussions.
… but ivan is right, the people in the group have more knowledge of the intent that somebody that hasn't been here for the discussions. ←
14:39:57 <ivan> gkellogg: I attempted to do same thing, i.e., reading the document literally and implement from that.
Gregg Kellogg: I attempted to do same thing, i.e., reading the document literally and implement from that. ←
14:40:09 <ivan> … I implemented 1.0 without being in the group, the most important tool for getting a proper implementation were the test cases.
… I implemented 1.0 without being in the group, the most important tool for getting a proper implementation were the test cases. ←
14:40:20 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:40:34 <ivan> … I would be worried to make any change that could ripple through the document.
… I would be worried to make any change that could ripple through the document. ←
14:41:38 <ivan> manu: We agree that it would be nice to make the processing steps a little bit more clear, but we are concerned about the ripple effects of this mainly when we already have implementations that followed the processing steps and that do work.
Manu Sporny: We agree that it would be nice to make the processing steps a little bit more clear, but we are concerned about the ripple effects of this mainly when we already have implementations that followed the processing steps and that do work. ←
14:42:01 <ivan> niklasl: I was mainly driven by the test cases, and in case we had a problem i went back to the text.
Niklas Lindström: I was mainly driven by the test cases, and in case we had a problem i went back to the text. ←
14:42:02 <niklasl> We could change it to this - "… "otherwise, if the @rel, @rev, and @content attributes are not present, as a resource obtained from one of the following:""
Niklas Lindström: We could change it to this - "… "otherwise, if the @rel, @rev, and @content attributes are not present, as a resource obtained from one of the following:"" ←
14:42:30 <scor> q+
Stéphane Corlosquet: q+ ←
14:42:46 <ivan> niklasl: I can see Alex' point if he did not have a return statement in his text
Niklas Lindström: I can see Alex' point if he did not have a return statement in his text ←
14:42:56 <niklasl> … we could change it to this: "otherwise, if the @rel, @rev, and @content attributes are not present, and a resource is obtained from one of the following:"
Niklas Lindström: … we could change it to this: "otherwise, if the @rel, @rev, and @content attributes are not present, and a resource is obtained from one of the following:" ←
14:43:13 <manu1> ack scor
Manu Sporny: ack scor ←
14:43:43 <ivan> scor: Grant's mail says that we should not change this and he outlines good rationale for not doing so.
Stéphane Corlosquet: Grant's mail says that we should not change this and he outlines good rationale for not doing so. ←
14:44:18 <ivan> scor: We could say the group agrees not to change using Grant's reasoning.
Stéphane Corlosquet: We could say the group agrees not to change using Grant's reasoning. ←
14:44:28 <ivan> manu: I do not think we should make any change at this point for all of the reasons stated during this call.
Manu Sporny: I do not think we should make any change at this point for all of the reasons stated during this call. ←
14:44:37 <ivan> … I think that Alex would understand if we do not make the change
… I think that Alex would understand if we do not make the change ←
14:44:44 <ivan> … the positive upside is small and the potential downside is large
… the positive upside is small and the potential downside is large ←
14:44:54 <ivan> … we do not really have a consensus that we really need the change, especially when it comes to the wording that we should use.
… we do not really have a consensus that we really need the change, especially when it comes to the wording that we should use. ←
14:45:53 <ivan> manu: I think we are talking this to death and should move on.
Manu Sporny: I think we are talking this to death and should move on. ←
14:46:06 <Steven_> Yes, let's move on.
Steven Pemberton: Yes, let's move on. ←
14:46:07 <ivan> manu: I have not heard anybody who feels very strongly that we should make this change. Does anybody feel strongly about making the change?
Manu Sporny: I have not heard anybody who feels very strongly that we should make this change. Does anybody feel strongly about making the change? ←
14:46:30 <ivan> Scribe notes silence, no strong feelings to make the change.
Scribe notes silence, no strong feelings to make the change. ←
14:47:49 <MacTed> While the text is not as clear as it might be, implications of a change are potentially more problematic than the present inclarity.
Ted Thibodeau: While the text is not as clear as it might be, implications of a change are potentially more problematic than the present inclarity. ←
14:48:32 <niklasl> I believe that Core section "8.1.1.3.1 Chaining with @property and @typeof" <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#chaining-with--property-and--typeof> wouldn't work with the wrong implementation of this step. Can anyone verify?
Niklas Lindström: I believe that Core section "8.1.1.3.1 Chaining with @property and @typeof" <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#chaining-with--property-and--typeof> wouldn't work with the wrong implementation of this step. Can anyone verify? ←
14:49:10 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Regarding Section 7.5, Step 11, while the text is not as clear as it should be, making a change at this point could be more problematic than leaving the text as is.
PROPOSED: Regarding Section 7.5, Step 11, while the text is not as clear as it should be, making a change at this point could be more problematic than leaving the text as is. ←
14:49:17 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
14:49:19 <ivan> ivan: +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:49:29 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:49:40 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
14:49:42 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:49:52 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:50:08 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:50:15 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:50:17 <manu1> RESOLVED: Regarding Section 7.5, Step 11, while the text is not as clear as it should be, making a change at this point could be more problematic than leaving the text as is.
RESOLVED: Regarding Section 7.5, Step 11, while the text is not as clear as it should be, making a change at this point could be more problematic than leaving the text as is. ←
14:50:59 <manu1> Additionally, the group believes that making a change right before REC is a bad idea, especially when the potential upside is difficult to ascertain.
Manu Sporny: Additionally, the group believes that making a change right before REC is a bad idea, especially when the potential upside is difficult to ascertain. ←
14:51:16 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
14:51:34 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
14:51:43 <ivan> niklasl: Should we discuss ISSUE-135 next?
Niklas Lindström: Should we discuss ISSUE-135 next? ←
14:51:50 <ivan> … it almost brought us to a halt...
… it almost brought us to a halt... ←
14:52:03 <ivan> manu: yes, we should discuss it, but we have to finalize the move to PR first.
Manu Sporny: yes, we should discuss it, but we have to finalize the move to PR first. ←
14:52:36 <scor> q+
Stéphane Corlosquet: q+ ←
14:53:04 <scor> It seems these pure editorial changes were not made to RDFa Lite yet: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0002.html - we might not need to vote, but I want to double check
Stéphane Corlosquet: It seems these pure editorial changes were not made to RDFa Lite yet: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0002.html - we might not need to vote, but I want to double check ←
14:53:27 <ivan> manu: I intend to merge those into the document as soon as possible.
Manu Sporny: I intend to merge those into the document as soon as possible. ←
14:53:32 <ivan> … Everything in there is editorial, I intend to make the changes you request to RDFa Lite 1.1.
… Everything in there is editorial, I intend to make the changes you request to RDFa Lite 1.1. ←
14:53:50 <ivan> manu: Is there any member of this working group that feels that there are any outstanding issues related to RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1? Would any member of this group object to moving these documents to the Proposed Recommendation stage?
Manu Sporny: Is there any member of this working group that feels that there are any outstanding issues related to RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1? Would any member of this group object to moving these documents to the Proposed Recommendation stage? ←
14:54:45 <ivan> No objections are noted.
No objections are noted. ←
14:55:09 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The RDF Web Apps Working Group requests that the Director move RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1, and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to the Proposed Recommendation status modulo any changes that may be required before April 30th. The group requests that the documents are published on May 3rd 2012.
PROPOSED: The RDF Web Apps Working Group requests that the Director move RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1, and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to the Proposed Recommendation status modulo any changes that may be required before April 30th. The group requests that the documents are published on May 3rd 2012. ←
14:55:24 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
14:55:25 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
14:55:26 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:55:26 <ivan> ivan: +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:55:27 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:55:27 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:55:34 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:55:46 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:55:48 <manu1> RESOLVED: The RDF Web Apps Working Group requests that the Director move RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1, and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to the Proposed Recommendation status modulo any changes that may be required before April 30th. The group requests that the documents are published on May 3rd 2012.
RESOLVED: The RDF Web Apps Working Group requests that the Director move RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1, and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to the Proposed Recommendation status modulo any changes that may be required before April 30th. The group requests that the documents are published on May 3rd 2012. ←
14:56:47 <ShaneM> This is what the CURIE regex should be: (([\i-[:]][\c-[:]]*)?:)?(/[^\s/]|[^\s/])[^\s]*
Shane McCarron: This is what the CURIE regex should be: (([\i-[:]][\c-[:]]*)?:)?(/[^\s/]|[^\s/])[^\s]* ←
14:57:22 <manu1> ivan: Practicalities - Manu - you should send out an e-mail to the chairs requesting PR... it should go out on Monday (that's the 30th). Maybe sending it out before to Ralph, Thomas, Ivan would be good. We should have this on the record. There should be some sort of a report on what changes have happened on the document, including an implementation report.
Ivan Herman: Practicalities - Manu - you should send out an e-mail to the chairs requesting PR... it should go out on Monday (that's the 30th). Maybe sending it out before to Ralph, Thomas, Ivan would be good. We should have this on the record. There should be some sort of a report on what changes have happened on the document, including an implementation report. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:57:55 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
14:57:59 <manu1> ack scor
Manu Sporny: ack scor ←
14:58:06 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
14:58:21 <ivan> gkellogg: The EARL report, should it be a working group note?
Gregg Kellogg: The EARL report, should it be a working group note? ←
14:58:23 <gkellogg> http://rdfa.info/earl-reports/
Gregg Kellogg: http://rdfa.info/earl-reports/ ←
15:00:05 <ivan> manu1: I will put a time-stamped document into W3C space.
Manu Sporny: I will put a time-stamped document into W3C space. ←
15:00:23 <ivan> … I will send out the info to ralph, thomas, and an official mail with chairs on Monday.
… I will send out the info to ralph, thomas, and an official mail with chairs on Monday. ←
15:00:45 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-135: RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values
15:00:58 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
15:01:50 <ShaneM> q+
Shane McCarron: q+ ←
15:02:26 <manu1> ack shanem
Manu Sporny: ack shanem ←
15:02:34 <manu1> Issue is here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/135
Manu Sporny: Issue is here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/135 ←
15:40:34 <ivan> Very long discussion about sending a strong message that RDFa 1.1 is complete. The group intends to ask large implementers if they feel that ISSUE-135 is actually an issue, and if it is, address it. If large implementers do not feel it is an issue, then no changes will be made. If large implementers feel that it is an issue, there are two proposals that the group could adopt.
(No events recorded for 38 minutes)
Very long discussion about sending a strong message that RDFa 1.1 is complete. The group intends to ask large implementers if they feel that ISSUE-135 is actually an issue, and if it is, address it. If large implementers do not feel it is an issue, then no changes will be made. If large implementers feel that it is an issue, there are two proposals that the group could adopt. ←
15:44:27 <manu1> What does the group favor? Straw poll: There are two options to address this issue: 1) In HTML5+RDFa - when using @vocab, authors MUST use CURIEs or IRIs in @rel (terms are ignored), and 2) In HTML5+RDFa, authors MUST use CURIEs or IRIs in @rel - no terms are allowed.
Manu Sporny: What does the group favor? Straw poll: There are two options to address this issue: 1) In HTML5+RDFa - when using @vocab, authors MUST use CURIEs or IRIs in @rel (terms are ignored), and 2) In HTML5+RDFa, authors MUST use CURIEs or IRIs in @rel - no terms are allowed. ←
15:44:43 <ivan> ivan: +1 +1
Ivan Herman: +1 +1 ←
15:44:47 <scor> +1 for either
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 for either ←
15:44:51 <gkellogg> +0, +1
Gregg Kellogg: +0, +1 ←
15:44:57 <ShaneM> -1 +1
Shane McCarron: -1 +1 ←
15:45:07 <manu1> manu: -1 -1 (but if I had to pick), -1 +1
Manu Sporny: -1 -1 (but if I had to pick), -1 +1 [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:45:57 <Steven> +0 +0
Steven Pemberton: +0 +0 ←
15:45:58 <niklasl> +0.75 +0.75 (I'd prefer opt. 2 + "only if @property is present in the same element")
Niklas Lindström: +0.75 +0.75 (I'd prefer opt. 2 + "only if @property is present in the same element") ←
15:46:03 <ivan> Ivan: The group seems to prefer option #2 with some minor tweaks for corner cases.
Ivan Herman: The group seems to prefer option #2 with some minor tweaks for corner cases. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe