13:07:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-rdfa-irc ←
13:07:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:07:12 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
13:07:12 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 53 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 53 minutes ←
13:07:13 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:07:14 <trackbot> Date: 10 May 2012
14:00:24 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 53 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
14:00:31 <Zakim> +??P8
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8 ←
14:00:34 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P8
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P8 ←
14:00:34 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl; got it ←
14:01:07 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
14:01:09 <Zakim> -niklasl
Zakim IRC Bot: -niklasl ←
14:01:09 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P14
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P14 ←
14:01:11 <Zakim> +niklasl
Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl ←
14:01:13 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
14:01:17 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
14:01:17 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P13
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P13 ←
14:01:20 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
14:01:31 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:01:31 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:01:32 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:02:12 <Zakim> +??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16 ←
14:02:20 <ShaneM> zakim, ??P16 is ShaneM
Shane McCarron: zakim, ??P16 is ShaneM ←
14:02:20 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it ←
14:06:43 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012May/0040.html
14:06:43 <manu1> Guest: Dan (danbri) Brickley
14:06:56 <manu1> scribenick: manu1
(Scribe set to Manu Sporny)
14:09:29 <manu1> Topic: RDFa Community Review
14:10:00 <manu1> ivan: Transition to Proposed Recommendation went well...
Ivan Herman: Transition to Proposed Recommendation went well... ←
14:10:23 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/05/08/three-rdfa-specifications-are-proposed-recommendations/
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/05/08/three-rdfa-specifications-are-proposed-recommendations/ ←
14:10:51 <manu1> manu: The launch of http://rdfa.info/ went very well - lots of traffic on the #rdfa twitter feed yesterday.
Manu Sporny: The launch of http://rdfa.info/ went very well - lots of traffic on the #rdfa twitter feed yesterday. ←
14:11:24 <manu1> manu: We have one one more big release today... in a couple of hours.
Manu Sporny: We have one one more big release today... in a couple of hours. ←
14:12:23 <manu1> manu: What else do we have to do for the PR, Ivan? Contact W3C members?
Manu Sporny: What else do we have to do for the PR, Ivan? Contact W3C members? ←
14:12:40 <manu1> ivan: Yes, we should contact members to make sure that they know that the RDFa 1.1 vote is happening.
Ivan Herman: Yes, we should contact members to make sure that they know that the RDFa 1.1 vote is happening. ←
14:13:27 <manu1> gkellogg: How does the voting work? Threshold?
Gregg Kellogg: How does the voting work? Threshold? ←
14:13:50 <manu1> ivan: No hard figure, not cast in concrete - if there is a Proposed REC that only gets 2-3 votes - then we would say that there probably isn't a large backing of the spec...
Ivan Herman: No hard figure, not cast in concrete - if there is a Proposed REC that only gets 2-3 votes - then we would say that there probably isn't a large backing of the spec... ←
14:14:29 <manu1> ivan: we're looking for wider acceptance of the spec - 8-10 positive votes would mean no problem... large companies are even better.
Ivan Herman: we're looking for wider acceptance of the spec - 8-10 positive votes would mean no problem... large companies are even better. ←
14:16:22 <manu1> ivan: At our AC meeting - I'll ask for votes.
Ivan Herman: At our AC meeting - I'll ask for votes. ←
14:17:14 <manu1> shane: The PF WG care about this as well ... they will vote.
Shane McCarron: The PF WG care about this as well ... they will vote. ←
14:18:04 <manu1> manu: I'll get an e-mail to you with all the folks we want to contact.
Manu Sporny: I'll get an e-mail to you with all the folks we want to contact. ←
14:18:26 <manu1> ivan: We should make sure the RECs are ready - I will be on the road during the last days of the PR period.
Ivan Herman: We should make sure the RECs are ready - I will be on the road during the last days of the PR period. ←
14:19:06 <manu1> ivan: At some point, the header of the final document should be updated - old spec should re-direct to the new one - do it for the old REC.
Ivan Herman: At some point, the header of the final document should be updated - old spec should re-direct to the new one - do it for the old REC. ←
14:19:25 <manu1> ivan: That is the /TR/rdf-syntax/ link should re-direct.
Ivan Herman: That is the /TR/rdf-syntax/ link should re-direct. ←
14:19:48 <manu1> manu: Is that standard procedure?
Manu Sporny: Is that standard procedure? ←
14:20:10 <manu1> shane: pretty standard, yes - new docs "supersede" old ones.
Shane McCarron: pretty standard, yes - new docs "supersede" old ones. ←
14:20:21 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-135: RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values
14:20:29 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/135
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/135 ←
14:21:03 <manu1> ivan: There are two things that are still up in the air with this issue...
Ivan Herman: There are two things that are still up in the air with this issue... ←
14:21:29 <manu1> niklasl: The two options listed in the issue tracker doesn't list all of the options... stephane sent an update.
Niklas Lindström: The two options listed in the issue tracker doesn't list all of the options... stephane sent an update. ←
14:22:58 <manu1> ivan: I think we are converging toward two possibilities 1) If you have an element that has both @rel and @property in HTML5, then the @rel can only take CURIEs, which will result in things like rel="nofollow" being ignored, then 2) There is a more global one that in HTML5+RDFa a @rel value can only have CURIEs.
Ivan Herman: I think we are converging toward two possibilities 1) If you have an element that has both @rel and @property in HTML5, then the @rel can only take CURIEs, which will result in things like rel="nofollow" being ignored, then 2) There is a more global one that in HTML5+RDFa a @rel value can only have CURIEs. ←
14:23:05 <manu1> ivan: obviously, the second one is much simpler.
Ivan Herman: obviously, the second one is much simpler. ←
14:23:39 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
14:23:42 <manu1> ivan: In HTML5, @rel is used in a fairly uncontrolled manner with a bunch of values that don't really have any semantic meaning to the document. It's a clear story, but with some down-sides.
Ivan Herman: In HTML5, @rel is used in a fairly uncontrolled manner with a bunch of values that don't really have any semantic meaning to the document. It's a clear story, but with some down-sides. ←
14:23:57 <manu1> ivan: The other one has minimum impact, but is harder to explain to those not steeped in this stuff.
Ivan Herman: The other one has minimum impact, but is harder to explain to those not steeped in this stuff. ←
14:24:07 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
14:24:08 <manu1> ivan: The second one would mean that rel="license" wouldn't work.
Ivan Herman: The second one would mean that rel="license" wouldn't work. ←
14:24:12 <manu1> ack niklasl
ack niklasl ←
14:24:45 <manu1> niklasl: That sums it up. Although, it wasn't entirely clear with option #2 that @rel in HTML5 could only contain CURIEs, or if it didn't care about @vocab, so it could take pre-defined terms.
Niklas Lindström: That sums it up. Although, it wasn't entirely clear with option #2 that @rel in HTML5 could only contain CURIEs, or if it didn't care about @vocab, so it could take pre-defined terms. ←
14:24:55 <danbri> ( rel=author is worth bearing in mind, e.g. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/06/authorship-markup-and-web-search.html )
Dan Brickley: ( rel=author is worth bearing in mind, e.g. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/06/authorship-markup-and-web-search.html ) ←
14:25:18 <manu1> ivan: No, the problem comes with what we call the "Stephane" phenomenon - CMS systems that auto-inject things like rel="nofollow" corrupts the author's intent.
Ivan Herman: No, the problem comes with what we call the "Stephane" phenomenon - CMS systems that auto-inject things like rel="nofollow" corrupts the author's intent. ←
14:26:11 <manu1> niklasl: Yes, important point - @rel has been used for semantic stuff for a long time... since RDFa 1.0 - @vocab has changed the situation. Given that @vocab is set to nothing by default... option #2 is the "default state". The issue is whether that endangers RDFa Lite 1.1.
Niklas Lindström: Yes, important point - @rel has been used for semantic stuff for a long time... since RDFa 1.0 - @vocab has changed the situation. Given that @vocab is set to nothing by default... option #2 is the "default state". The issue is whether that endangers RDFa Lite 1.1. ←
14:27:14 <manu1> niklasl: Given what I see, if somebody uses @rel="license" @rel="author" or anything that relates to the @href... I would argue that it's very much inline with RDFa - with terms as well - and what Stephane highlighted is that @rel is also used in some cases, orthogonally to the subject matter, with mechanical annotions. The only ones that we know are problems are nofollow and prefetch.
Niklas Lindström: Given what I see, if somebody uses @rel="license" @rel="author" or anything that relates to the @href... I would argue that it's very much inline with RDFa - with terms as well - and what Stephane highlighted is that @rel is also used in some cases, orthogonally to the subject matter, with mechanical annotions. The only ones that we know are problems are nofollow and prefetch. ←
14:27:30 <manu1> niklasl: Both of them don't seem to relate at all to the subject matter... so the situation is pretty deep.
Niklas Lindström: Both of them don't seem to relate at all to the subject matter... so the situation is pretty deep. ←
14:27:52 <manu1> niklasl: I am still in favor of option #1 - rel="license" are important...
Niklas Lindström: I am still in favor of option #1 - rel="license" are important... ←
14:28:06 <manu1> manu: Dan Brickley (above) also says that rel="author" is important as well.
Manu Sporny: Dan Brickley (above) also says that rel="author" is important as well. ←
14:28:38 <manu1> niklasl: With @vocab you can choose which vocab you use - so, if you want to use nofollow and not generate garbage triples, you can always use vocab=""
Niklas Lindström: With @vocab you can choose which vocab you use - so, if you want to use nofollow and not generate garbage triples, you can always use vocab="" ←
14:29:32 <manu1> niklasl: It requires awareness, for this reason, option #1 is a heuristic... if you use RDFa Lite 1.1 and want to use property... any @rel attribute using a term would be 'muted' by the use of property. @rel is a double-edged sword in HTML5.
Niklas Lindström: It requires awareness, for this reason, option #1 is a heuristic... if you use RDFa Lite 1.1 and want to use property... any @rel attribute using a term would be 'muted' by the use of property. @rel is a double-edged sword in HTML5. ←
14:29:39 <manu1> ack gkellogg
ack gkellogg ←
14:30:13 <manu1> gkellogg: The advantage of option #2 is that it is really clear what it means - we might want to consider amending it to include explicitly defined terms in the default context - rel=license and rel=author would be two of those.
Gregg Kellogg: The advantage of option #2 is that it is really clear what it means - we might want to consider amending it to include explicitly defined terms in the default context - rel=license and rel=author would be two of those. ←
14:30:33 <manu1> gkellogg: It might be that we want to include terms that are defined in the default context, but not apply @vocab.
Gregg Kellogg: It might be that we want to include terms that are defined in the default context, but not apply @vocab. ←
14:30:38 <manu1> niklasl: Yes, agreed.
Niklas Lindström: Yes, agreed. ←
14:31:38 <manu1> ivan: Conceptually, what Gregg is saying: if I see a @rel, if the term is one of the pre-defined ones - I use the corresponding URIs, otherwise I ditch it.
Ivan Herman: Conceptually, what Gregg is saying: if I see a @rel, if the term is one of the pre-defined ones - I use the corresponding URIs, otherwise I ditch it. ←
14:32:17 <manu1> gregg: We would add terms like license and author.
Gregg Kellogg: We would add terms like license and author. ←
14:34:08 <manu1> niklasl: If somebody uses XHTML1.1 instead of XHTML5, the meaning would change in some cases... because the terms between the two languages are different...
Niklas Lindström: If somebody uses XHTML1.1 instead of XHTML5, the meaning would change in some cases... because the terms between the two languages are different... ←
14:34:59 <manu1> ivan: Yes, right and wrong at the same time - theoretically that is true, but in practice, we don't have too many XHTML1.1 documents that use @rel together with @vocab - because @vocab is brand new.
Ivan Herman: Yes, right and wrong at the same time - theoretically that is true, but in practice, we don't have too many XHTML1.1 documents that use @rel together with @vocab - because @vocab is brand new. ←
14:35:41 <manu1> ivan: No big changes for old documents... out of the loads of @rel values - only a few - like license has meaning... stylesheet has always been considered junk.
Ivan Herman: No big changes for old documents... out of the loads of @rel values - only a few - like license has meaning... stylesheet has always been considered junk. ←
14:39:33 <manu1> manu: I think people are going to have a hard time accepting that there are differences between XHTML1 and XHTML5 documents if they use certain terms... but they are different languages... but authors are not going to care about that. It's a concern...
Manu Sporny: I think people are going to have a hard time accepting that there are differences between XHTML1 and XHTML5 documents if they use certain terms... but they are different languages... but authors are not going to care about that. It's a concern... ←
14:39:56 <manu1> manu: I don't know if there is much that we can do about that - as this is the right thing to do... the meaning of terms changed between XHTML1 and HTML5...
Manu Sporny: I don't know if there is much that we can do about that - as this is the right thing to do... the meaning of terms changed between XHTML1 and HTML5... ←
14:40:18 <manu1> ivan: Yes, these are issues... but we can't really do anything about it.
Ivan Herman: Yes, these are issues... but we can't really do anything about it. ←
14:40:38 <niklasl> * If @property is present and @rel only contains terms (that is, keywords without any colon, ":"), @rel MUST be ignored and the processor behave as if @rel is not present.
Niklas Lindström: * If @property is present and @rel only contains terms (that is, keywords without any colon, ":"), @rel MUST be ignored and the processor behave as if @rel is not present. ←
14:40:52 <manu1> ivan: That's option #1
Ivan Herman: That's option #1 ←
14:41:01 <manu1> niklasl: That's what danbri said he liked...
Niklas Lindström: That's what danbri said he liked... ←
14:41:13 <manu1> ivan: I think the simpler one is option #2.
Ivan Herman: I think the simpler one is option #2. ←
14:41:23 <manu1> niklasl: I think if we do option #2 with the pre-defined terms, that's okay as well.
Niklas Lindström: I think if we do option #2 with the pre-defined terms, that's okay as well. ←
14:41:45 <danbri> I'm not sure what I like really! it's hard to judge consequences, sorry :/
Dan Brickley: I'm not sure what I like really! it's hard to judge consequences, sorry :/ ←
14:42:02 <manu1> niklasl: I want to bring the control that people have with vocab a bit tighter - I'm wavering on this because I might be trying to salvage an unsalvage-able situation.
Niklas Lindström: I want to bring the control that people have with vocab a bit tighter - I'm wavering on this because I might be trying to salvage an unsalvage-able situation. ←
14:42:18 <manu1> manu: I agree with the sentiment...
Manu Sporny: I agree with the sentiment... ←
14:42:35 <manu1> niklasl: I'm concerned that option #2 is a bit heavy-handed.
Niklas Lindström: I'm concerned that option #2 is a bit heavy-handed. ←
14:43:14 <ivan> PROPOSED: for the usage of @rel in HTML5+RDFa: if the value of @rel is one of the predefined terms in the initial context, then the corresponding URI is used, if the value is another term (non-curie or non-URI) then it is ignored; if the value of @rel becomes empty after these steps then @rel itself is ignored altogether
PROPOSED: for the usage of @rel in HTML5+RDFa: if the value of @rel is one of the predefined terms in the initial context, then the corresponding URI is used, if the value is another term (non-curie or non-URI) then it is ignored; if the value of @rel becomes empty after these steps then @rel itself is ignored altogether ←
14:44:11 <manu1> niklasl: We have to make sure that option #2 is defined in such a way that if @rel doesn't contained CURIEs, it is ignored altogether... will readers understand that?
Niklas Lindström: We have to make sure that option #2 is defined in such a way that if @rel doesn't contained CURIEs, it is ignored altogether... will readers understand that? ←
14:44:31 <manu1> ivan: We will write it in a way that is understandable - if you want to use @rel for RDFa purposes, either use CURIEs or use the pre-defined values.
Ivan Herman: We will write it in a way that is understandable - if you want to use @rel for RDFa purposes, either use CURIEs or use the pre-defined values. ←
14:45:10 <manu1> manu: This applies for @rev as well.
Manu Sporny: This applies for @rev as well. ←
14:45:48 <manu1> ivan: I think the message is relatively clear - we can have discussions on whether or not we need more than license, author, role, seeAlso, etc.
Ivan Herman: I think the message is relatively clear - we can have discussions on whether or not we need more than license, author, role, seeAlso, etc. ←
14:45:51 <niklasl> .. Compare: <a property="url" href="abc" rel="license">, <a property="url" href="abc" rel="nofollow"> and <a property="url" href="abc" rel="sweetheart">
Niklas Lindström: .. Compare: <a property="url" href="abc" rel="license">, <a property="url" href="abc" rel="nofollow"> and <a property="url" href="abc" rel="sweetheart"> ←
14:45:59 <manu1> ivan: We can add terms after discussing it at any time.
Ivan Herman: We can add terms after discussing it at any time. ←
14:47:58 <manu1> Discussion about what happens with niklasl's markup above based on the proposals on the table.
Discussion about what happens with niklasl's markup above based on the proposals on the table. ←
14:49:04 <manu1> gkellogg: We need a warning in the spec that we suggest that authors don't mix rel and property on the same element in HTML5.
Gregg Kellogg: We need a warning in the spec that we suggest that authors don't mix rel and property on the same element in HTML5. ←
14:49:59 <manu1> niklasl: The problem with option #2 - is that markup could change over time because new terms are added...
Niklas Lindström: The problem with option #2 - is that markup could change over time because new terms are added... ←
14:50:40 <manu1> ivan: I agree - we're in a situation where anything that we do is wrong - if we leave it alone it's wrong, if we do option #1 it's wrong, if we do option #2, it's wrong... lesser evils... the problem is trying to explain this to someone easily.
Ivan Herman: I agree - we're in a situation where anything that we do is wrong - if we leave it alone it's wrong, if we do option #1 it's wrong, if we do option #2, it's wrong... lesser evils... the problem is trying to explain this to someone easily. ←
14:50:56 <manu1> niklasl: We could say "@property is /stronger/ than @rel in HTML5"
Niklas Lindström: We could say "@property is /stronger/ than @rel in HTML5" ←
14:51:41 <manu1> ivan: We could say that we not only discourage @property and @rel on the same element, but in HTML5+RDFa - we remove any @rel if it is used together with @property.
Ivan Herman: We could say that we not only discourage @property and @rel on the same element, but in HTML5+RDFa - we remove any @rel if it is used together with @property. ←
14:51:59 <manu1> manu: Too radical - we don't want to do that.
Manu Sporny: Too radical - we don't want to do that. ←
14:52:11 <manu1> niklasl: It would also be a b/c issue.
Niklas Lindström: It would also be a b/c issue. ←
14:53:33 <Zakim> -niklasl
Zakim IRC Bot: -niklasl ←
14:54:04 <Zakim> +??P8
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8 ←
14:54:08 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??p8
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??p8 ←
14:54:08 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl; got it ←
14:54:54 <manu1> niklasl: We're trying to find something easier to explain.
Niklas Lindström: We're trying to find something easier to explain. ←
14:55:51 <Zakim> + +1.415.459.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.415.459.aaaa ←
14:56:04 <gkellogg> zakim, I am aaaa
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am aaaa ←
14:56:05 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
14:56:34 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
14:57:57 <manu1> manu: I don't think that option #1 isn't that hard to teach - don't use @property and @rel on the same element. If you do, @property will win in @rel doesn't contain a full IRI or CURIE.
Manu Sporny: I don't think that option #1 isn't that hard to teach - don't use @property and @rel on the same element. If you do, @property will win in @rel doesn't contain a full IRI or CURIE. ←
14:58:29 <manu1> manu: I think we need to address Stephane's issue, but not go too far and change how it's processed too greatly.
Manu Sporny: I think we need to address Stephane's issue, but not go too far and change how it's processed too greatly. ←
14:58:52 <manu1> manu: So, I'm leaning toward option #1 now.
Manu Sporny: So, I'm leaning toward option #1 now. ←
15:00:32 <ivan> PROPOSED: if @property and @rel/@rev are on the same elements, the non-CURIE and non-URI @rel/@rev values are, conceptually, removed. If, after this, the value of @rel/@rev becomes empty, then the attribute is removed altogether
PROPOSED: if @property and @rel/@rev are on the same elements, the non-CURIE and non-URI @rel/@rev values are, conceptually, removed. If, after this, the value of @rel/@rev becomes empty, then the attribute is removed altogether ←
15:01:40 <ShaneM> then the processor must act as if the attribute is not present
Shane McCarron: then the processor must act as if the attribute is not present ←
15:01:55 <niklasl> * If @property is present and @rel only contains terms (that is,
Niklas Lindström: * If @property is present and @rel only contains terms (that is, ←
15:01:56 <niklasl> keywords without any colon, ":"), @rel MUST be ignored and the
Niklas Lindström: keywords without any colon, ":"), @rel MUST be ignored and the ←
15:01:56 <niklasl> processor behave as if @rel is not present.
Niklas Lindström: processor behave as if @rel is not present. ←
15:03:38 <manu1> PROPOSAL: If @property and @rel/@rev are on the same elements, the non-CURIE and non-URI @rel/@rev values are ignored. If, after this, the value of @rel/@rev becomes empty, then the then the processor must act as if the attribute is not present.
PROPOSED: If @property and @rel/@rev are on the same elements, the non-CURIE and non-URI @rel/@rev values are ignored. If, after this, the value of @rel/@rev becomes empty, then the then the processor must act as if the attribute is not present. ←
15:03:43 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
15:03:47 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:03:48 <manu1> manu: +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:03:52 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:04:31 <niklasl> .. <a property="url" href="abc" rel="license">
Niklas Lindström: .. <a property="url" href="abc" rel="license"> ←
15:05:35 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:05:40 <manu1> RESOLVED: If @property and @rel/@rev are on the same elements, the non-CURIE and non-URI @rel/@rev values are ignored. If, after this, the value of @rel/@rev becomes empty, then the then the processor must act as if the attribute is not present.
RESOLVED: If @property and @rel/@rev are on the same elements, the non-CURIE and non-URI @rel/@rev values are ignored. If, after this, the value of @rel/@rev becomes empty, then the then the processor must act as if the attribute is not present. ←
15:06:02 <niklasl> @danbri, does this sound good too you?
Niklas Lindström: @danbri, does this sound good too you? ←
15:06:42 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-137: HTML+RDFa should normatively declare media types and describe how to identify relative to XHTML+RDFa 1.1
15:07:00 <manu1> ivan: This is a very messy situation that we're not in a position to solve - that is it's up to HTML5
Ivan Herman: This is a very messy situation that we're not in a position to solve - that is it's up to HTML5 ←
15:07:07 <manu1> shanem: HTML5 says something about this explicitly.
Shane McCarron: HTML5 says something about this explicitly. ←
15:07:26 <manu1> ivan: HTML5+RDFa should not declare media types...
Ivan Herman: HTML5+RDFa should not declare media types... ←
15:07:54 <manu1> gkellogg: Which profile should be used - that we don't state it makes it sound confusing to Alex...
Gregg Kellogg: Which profile should be used - that we don't state it makes it sound confusing to Alex... ←
15:08:01 <manu1> shanem: We already say this in the XHTML spec.
Shane McCarron: We already say this in the XHTML spec. ←
15:08:42 <ShaneM> we say: XHTML+RDFa documents should be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236]. For further information on using media types with XHTML Family markup languages, see the informative note [XHTML-MEDIA-TYPES].
Shane McCarron: we say: XHTML+RDFa documents should be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236]. For further information on using media types with XHTML Family markup languages, see the informative note [XHTML-MEDIA-TYPES]. ←
15:08:46 <manu1> manu: Follow your nose is clear on this - it's "text/html" for HTML5... and "application/xhtml+xml" for XHTML5.
Manu Sporny: Follow your nose is clear on this - it's "text/html" for HTML5... and "application/xhtml+xml" for XHTML5. ←
15:09:14 <manu1> gkellogg: I think that people will still wrongly understand the difference between XHTML1 and XHTML5.
Gregg Kellogg: I think that people will still wrongly understand the difference between XHTML1 and XHTML5. ←
15:09:20 <manu1> gkellogg: I think some clarification would be good.
Gregg Kellogg: I think some clarification would be good. ←
15:09:42 <manu1> ivan: This is not our mess, right?
Ivan Herman: This is not our mess, right? ←
15:10:39 <manu1> shanem: I think you're reading more into it than you need to... we already say this for XHTML+RDFa.
Shane McCarron: I think you're reading more into it than you need to... we already say this for XHTML+RDFa. ←
15:10:49 <manu1> manu: I think we do need to say something non-normative to be clear about this...
Manu Sporny: I think we do need to say something non-normative to be clear about this... ←
15:10:52 <manu1> niklasl: I agree.
Niklas Lindström: I agree. ←
15:11:15 <manu1> niklasl: I expect some kind of HTML5 flavor - everything will be treated as that in the future - unless it's apparent in DOCTYPE or version that it isn't HTML5.
Niklas Lindström: I expect some kind of HTML5 flavor - everything will be treated as that in the future - unless it's apparent in DOCTYPE or version that it isn't HTML5. ←
15:12:15 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Add non-normative text to the HTML+RDFa specification that makes it clear which media types apply to the specification and under what circumstances documents should be processed according to the specification.
PROPOSED: Add non-normative text to the HTML+RDFa specification that makes it clear which media types apply to the specification and under what circumstances documents should be processed according to the specification. ←
15:12:33 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:12:34 <manu1> manu: +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:12:35 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:12:36 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
15:13:03 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:14:08 <manu1> RESOLVED: Add non-normative text to the HTML+RDFa specification that makes it clear which media types apply to the specification and under what circumstances documents should be processed according to the specification.
RESOLVED: Add non-normative text to the HTML+RDFa specification that makes it clear which media types apply to the specification and under what circumstances documents should be processed according to the specification. ←
15:14:19 <manu1> manu: The specs already say this...
Manu Sporny: The specs already say this... ←
15:15:02 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-140: Support for @data attribute
15:15:55 <manu1> https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/140
https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/140 ←
15:16:50 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
15:16:54 <manu1> manu: Should we add @data? Does data act like @src if we add it?
Manu Sporny: Should we add @data? Does data act like @src if we add it? ←
15:17:08 <manu1> shanem: We don't do this in XHTML, we shouldn't do it for HTML5.
Shane McCarron: We don't do this in XHTML, we shouldn't do it for HTML5. ←
15:17:40 <manu1> gregg: This comes out of the Microdata processing model - we would do this to track Microdata.
Gregg Kellogg: This comes out of the Microdata processing model - we would do this to track Microdata. ←
15:17:52 <manu1> ivan: Don't we also have a data element in HTML5?
Ivan Herman: Don't we also have a data element in HTML5? ←
15:18:01 <manu1> gkellogg: That is different... this would only be allowed on OBJECT.
Gregg Kellogg: That is different... this would only be allowed on OBJECT. ←
15:18:12 <manu1> shanem: This is in HTML4 as well - it's not new.
Shane McCarron: This is in HTML4 as well - it's not new. ←
15:18:33 <manu1> shanem: This is also weird - it's not relative to BASE, it's interpreted relative to code_base.
Shane McCarron: This is also weird - it's not relative to BASE, it's interpreted relative to code_base. ←
15:18:50 <manu1> shanem: I can see why we /might/ want to process it, if it's super-important we could do it.
Shane McCarron: I can see why we /might/ want to process it, if it's super-important we could do it. ←
15:18:57 <manu1> ack niklasl
ack niklasl ←
15:19:19 <manu1> manu: It's used for Flash, right?
Manu Sporny: It's used for Flash, right? ←
15:19:30 <manu1> shanem: OBJECT was supposed to replace image... because it has fallback.
Shane McCarron: OBJECT was supposed to replace image... because it has fallback. ←
15:20:06 <manu1> gkellogg: i'm fine with us not supporting this as well.
Gregg Kellogg: i'm fine with us not supporting this as well. ←
15:20:22 <manu1> manu: I don't think we should support it either... it's on its way out.
Manu Sporny: I don't think we should support it either... it's on its way out. ←
15:20:46 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Do not support the @data attribute on the OBJECT element in HTML+RDFa.
PROPOSED: Do not support the @data attribute on the OBJECT element in HTML+RDFa. ←
15:20:48 <manu1> manu: +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:20:52 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:20:53 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:20:54 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:20:55 <niklasl> +1 (at this time)
Niklas Lindström: +1 (at this time) ←
15:20:58 <manu1> RESOLVED: Do not support the @data attribute on the OBJECT element in HTML+RDFa.
RESOLVED: Do not support the @data attribute on the OBJECT element in HTML+RDFa. ←
15:21:31 <manu1> Topic: HTML5 terms
15:21:41 <manu1> gkellogg: Do we want to add any new terms to HTML5 default context?
Gregg Kellogg: Do we want to add any new terms to HTML5 default context? ←
15:21:49 <manu1> manu: Let's wait to do that.
Manu Sporny: Let's wait to do that. ←
15:21:58 <manu1> ivan: Yes, we should wait - see how things progress in HTML WG.
Ivan Herman: Yes, we should wait - see how things progress in HTML WG. ←
15:22:03 <manu1> niklasl: Put it on the wiki?
Niklas Lindström: Put it on the wiki? ←
15:22:08 <manu1> ivan: Probably...
Ivan Herman: Probably... ←
15:22:57 <manu1> ivan: I have already made an errata page - one page for all 3 specs.
Ivan Herman: I have already made an errata page - one page for all 3 specs. ←
15:22:57 <manu1> manu: Okay, that's it - all issues are resolved - we are DONE! (for now). We will meet again a week before REC, and then again to finalize the RDF API and RDFa API work.
Manu Sporny: Okay, that's it - all issues are resolved - we are DONE! (for now). We will meet again a week before REC, and then again to finalize the RDF API and RDFa API work. ←
15:23:08 <Zakim> -ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←
15:25:35 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
Formatted by CommonScribe