IRC log of swbp on 2006-02-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:51:00 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #swbp

13:51:00 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-irc

13:51:09 [RalphS]

Meeting: SWBPD RDF-in-XHTML TF

13:51:22 [RalphS]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/t-and-s/2006Feb/0004.html

13:52:00 [RalphS]

Previous: 2006-01-30 http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-minutes.html

14:00:55 [Steven]

Steven has joined #swbp

14:01:03 [benadida]

benadida has joined #swbp

14:01:23 [Steven]

ki

14:01:25 [Steven]

Hi I mean

14:01:37 [Steven]

Mark is in a delayed train so may be 15 mins late

14:01:40 [Zakim]

SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)9:00AM has now started

14:01:44 [Steven]

zakim, who is here?

14:01:44 [Zakim]

On the phone I see no one

14:01:45 [Zakim]

On IRC I see benadida, Steven, RRSAgent, Zakim, RalphS

14:01:47 [Zakim]

+Ben_Adida

14:01:49 [Zakim]

+Ralph

14:01:51 [Steven]

zakim, dial steven-617

14:01:55 [Zakim]

ok, Steven; the call is being made

14:01:57 [Zakim]

+Steven

14:01:58 [RalphS]

Chair: BenA

14:02:28 [RalphS]

Regrets: Jeremy

14:03:19 [RalphS]

Topic: integration of RDF/A syntax into XHTML specs.

14:03:34 [RalphS]

Steven: integration is proceeding. We hope it will be done by the end of this week.

14:04:08 [RalphS]

Ralph: will this TF be given a URI of an editor's draft for us to glance at?

14:04:13 [RalphS]

Steven: yes, absolutely

14:04:27 [RalphS]

... to speed up the process we're inclined to say now "comment on the Last Call draft"

14:04:42 [RalphS]

... as if we issue another WD now it will delay Last Call

14:04:57 [RalphS]

... every time we reissue a draft we get lots of new comments that prevent us from exiting Last Call

14:05:36 [RalphS]

... so we'd like to give the TF a final Last Call

14:05:54 [RalphS]

Ralph: can we see a "final" editor's draft?

14:05:54 [RalphS]

Steven: if you really, really want

14:06:40 [RalphS]

Ralph: it would be reasonable to ask the TF to restrict its comments to "show stoppers"

14:07:35 [benadida]

Ralph: if integration finished this week, then next week's telecon is probably when you decide readiness for publishing

14:07:41 [benadida]

Steven: yes

14:07:58 [benadida]

... the integration will be done this week, though we might not be in last call next week.

14:09:06 [benadida]

Ralph: how does the XHTML WG share editors' drafts?

14:09:14 [benadida]

Steve: nightly build URL that I'll send along

14:09:42 [benadida]

Ralph: so we can look at the nightly build over the weekend

14:12:57 [benadida]

ACTION: once Steven sends editors' draft of XHTML2, all TF members take a look and comment on showstopper issues only

14:13:32 [RalphS]

Topic: review of action items

14:14:03 [RalphS]

[CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy followup on edge case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action03]

14:14:13 [RalphS]

[CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy followup with Mark on the question of multiple triples from nested meta and add to issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action01]

14:14:18 [RalphS]

[CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy propose wording on reification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action02]

14:14:59 [RalphS]

[CONTINUES] ACTION: Ben to draft full response to Bjoern's 2004 email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action03]

14:15:11 [RalphS]

Ben: mostly done, just need to finish the bit on collections

14:15:32 [RalphS]

[CONTINUES] ACTION: Ben start separate mail threads on remaining discussion topics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action04]

14:15:43 [RalphS]

Ben: a couple of issue threads left

14:16:00 [RalphS]

... but consider yourselves reprimanded for not responding to the existing threads

14:16:11 [RalphS]

[DONE] ACTION: Ben add lack-of-consensus notes to the RDF/A Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/30-swbp-minutes.html#action12]

14:16:45 [RalphS]

agenda+ Wording in Section 2 Note

14:18:53 [benadida]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Dec/0016

14:19:34 [RalphS]

Topic: Issue 9; <link href='...'>

14:19:52 [RalphS]

Steven: so the proposal is that <link> should be equivalent to <a>?

14:20:09 [RalphS]

... other option is to say that only <a> is intended to be clickable

14:20:23 [RalphS]

Ben: note that <link> has the special semantics of 'refers to parent element only'

14:20:46 [RalphS]

Steven: <link> currently has the property that the links are often accessible in the browser

14:20:52 [RalphS]

... e.g. <link rel='next'>

14:20:57 [RalphS]

... shows up in a menu

14:21:08 [RalphS]

... what's new in XHTML2 now is that <link> is permitted in body

14:21:16 [RalphS]

Ben: is content permitted in <link>?

14:21:22 [RalphS]

... if so, what does it mean?

14:21:43 [RalphS]

Steven: yes, content is permitted. It's a question whether <link> is display:none

14:22:19 [RalphS]

Ben: it's a decision for the HTML WG to say whether link is display:none by default and can be overridden by stylesheets

14:22:43 [RalphS]

... would it be the case that the value of display can be overridden in a stylesheet?

14:23:10 [RalphS]

Steven: the attribute that makes <link> clickable is not specifiable in a stylesheet

14:23:37 [RalphS]

... since href is now permitted everywhere, this raises the question of whether every element now becomes clickable

14:24:13 [MarkB_]

MarkB_ has joined #swbp

14:24:27 [RalphS]

... the HTML WG's current feeling is that the href is accessible to the user in some way but not necessarily rendered in the same way as <a>

14:25:21 [RalphS]

Ben: this could be an issue for users if href has both RDF semantics and other semantics

14:25:39 [Zakim]

+??P7

14:25:47 [MarkB_]

zakim, i am ?

14:25:47 [Zakim]

+MarkB_; got it

14:26:04 [RalphS]

Ralph: could be a user interoperability problem; href seems likely to get some presentation semantics which might differ between browsers

14:27:10 [RalphS]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Dec/0016 "Discussing Outsanding Issues - Issue #9" [Ben 2005-12-11]

14:27:51 [RalphS]

Ben: is the HTML WG leaning towards making href on other elements behave differently than on <a>?

14:28:06 [RalphS]

Steven: I think that <meta> and <link> are display:none

14:28:34 [RalphS]

... but the question still arises on what happens of the stylesheet does make it displayable

14:29:23 [RalphS]

... my feeling is that if <link> or <meta> is made visible it should not appear as a primary clickable link

14:29:55 [RalphS]

Mark: as soon as we say that href is a left-clickable link everywhere this makes things consistent

14:30:22 [RalphS]

... then if we say these elements are display:none by default [we are compatible with older browsers]

14:30:59 [RalphS]

... right-button on a <blockquote>, for example, would be a nice way to show a menu of all links from this quote

14:31:28 [RalphS]

... not unlike what browsers do to create a menu bar for <link rel='next'>

14:32:55 [RalphS]

Steven: the question is where to draw the line between the XHTML specification and user agent behaviour

14:33:13 [RalphS]

... whether [user agent behaviour] should be made normative or not

14:34:11 [RalphS]

Ben: the question of default value of display really only applies when the <link> or <meta> is not empty

14:34:44 [RalphS]

Mark: I suggest we say that the link content is an rdfs:label that applies to the subject

14:35:19 [RalphS]

... with inline text [content] a clever browser can use the rdfs:label in its menu

14:36:29 [RalphS]

Ben: <li href=''> is clickable, right?

14:36:47 [RalphS]

Mark: yes, and with the primary means of navigation

14:37:20 [RalphS]

Ben: so the question is whether <link> and <meta> are consistent with this

14:37:50 [RalphS]

Mark: I don't think it would be right to make a special case for this except by adding display:none

14:38:36 [RalphS]

Ben: so we agree here that <link> and <meta> are clickable but the HTML WG may decide to add display:none

14:39:13 [RalphS]

Steven: so the suggestion is that any element with href is clickable [in the primary method] when it is visible?

14:39:14 [RalphS]

Ben: yes

14:40:41 [RalphS]

PROPOSED: This Task Force concurs that href on any element that is visible makes that element clickable using the primary user agent mechanism but that <link> and <meta> may be display:none by default at the HTML WG's choice

14:41:03 [RalphS]

so RESOLVED

14:41:18 [RalphS]

Topic: RSS in RDF/A

14:41:32 [benadida]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jan/0063.html

14:41:56 [benadida]

the bug is:

14:41:57 [benadida]

<ul id="#items"

14:41:57 [RalphS]

Ben: note Ian Davis' correction

14:41:59 [benadida]

should be

14:42:06 [benadida]

<ul id="items" about="#items">

14:43:11 [RalphS]

Ralph: please add the namespace declaration

14:43:37 [RalphS]

Ben: the primary question here is about the rdf:Seq

14:44:03 [MarkB_]

www.xforms-wiki.com

14:44:50 [RalphS]

(that link is on the -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/ HTML TF home page)

14:45:32 [RalphS]

-> http://www.xforms-wiki.com/bin/view/Main/LanguageRdfAExampleRSS LanguageRdfAExampleRSS

14:46:20 [RalphS]

Ben: I wrote 0063 without using any syntactic sugar; i.e. rel="ref:_1"

14:47:22 [RalphS]

... can we use rdf:li ?

14:47:43 [RalphS]

Mark: unless you use [XML] Schema, you don't get the html <li> semantics if you use rdf:li

14:48:30 [RalphS]

Ben: can we use rdf:li to avoid needing _1, _2, etc. Having to use XML Schema is fine.

14:48:51 [RalphS]

-> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-list-elements 2.15 Container Membership Property Elements: rdf:li and rdf:_n

14:49:21 [RalphS]

Mark: alternatively, we could say that html:li has rdf:li semantics

14:51:29 [RalphS]

... hasn't rdf:Seq been replaced by lists?

14:51:51 [RalphS]

Ralph: rdf:Seq is not deprecated, but lists have important semantics that indicate that the list is complete

14:52:10 [RalphS]

Mark: rdf:Seq has semantics of saying _ordered_ lists

14:52:35 [RalphS]

... in your 0063 example you've used <ul> -- unordered list

14:52:56 [RalphS]

... we could use the HTML semantics to advantage; create rdf:Seq or rdf:Bag

14:53:33 [RalphS]

Ralph: not clear

14:54:05 [RalphS]

Mark: do we expect anything to make use of the ordered/unordered semantics?

14:54:16 [RalphS]

Ralph: I would think so, since HTML has those semantics

14:54:46 [RalphS]

Ben: I'm in favor of looking at ordered vs. unordered semantics

14:55:39 [RalphS]

Ralph: so an important question from the HTML point of view is whether authors using <ol> and <ul> intend to say "... and this is the complete list"?

14:55:56 [RalphS]

Steven: given the start attribute, I would not want to make a commitment to what authors intend

14:56:35 [Zakim]

-Steven

14:56:47 [RalphS]

ACTION: Ben write out a proposal for how OL and UL turn into rdf:Seq and rdf:Bag

14:57:02 [RalphS]

Mark: there's a new type list in XHTML 2; an <nl> -- Navigation List

14:57:34 [RalphS]

... so <ol> might be an rdf:Seq and every other type of list is rdf:Bag

14:58:02 [RalphS]

Ralph: perhaps <nl> is like rdf:Alt, since you choose one navigation path :)

14:58:15 [RalphS]

... but I don't think we really want to overload things that much

14:59:35 [RalphS]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Feb/0015.html

15:02:45 [RalphS]

Ralph: it's clear that Section 2 does not follow the TAG's instructions

15:02:57 [RalphS]

... what is less clear is whether the ambiguity is critical

15:03:26 [RalphS]

... how about "do not follow" rather than "incorrect"

15:03:42 [RalphS]

Mark: I don't mind "incorrect" if they really don't follow the TAG's instructions

15:04:55 [RalphS]

Ralph: propose to add the sentence "pecifically, the

15:04:55 [RalphS]

examples in this section use the same URI to refer to both a Person

15:04:55 [RalphS]

(or a group of people) and a document.

15:04:56 [RalphS]

"

15:04:59 [RalphS]

Ben: OK with me

15:05:02 [RalphS]

Mark: OK with me

15:05:22 [RalphS]

... there are two levels at which the URI confusion is happening; one at the foaf level and the other at the URI level

15:06:42 [RalphS]

Ralph: it feels a mistake to me to omit the subject of the triples, particularly in section 2.2.3

15:07:51 [RalphS]

... as this is explicitly the nature of this URI debate

15:08:03 [RalphS]

... let's not sweep this under the rug as we do know what the current RDF/A syntax spec says

15:08:13 [RalphS]

Mark: that's fine with me

15:09:03 [RalphS]

Ralph: we can note that there is a philosophical debate going on but let's not dodge that; the Primer should show what the Syntax spec says must be generated

15:10:25 [RalphS]

RESOLVED: we agree that the rest of the triple can be added before publication

15:11:15 [RalphS]

ACTION: Ben update the editor's draft

15:11:36 [RalphS]

ACTION 3= Ben update the editor's draft to add to section 2

15:11:43 [Zakim]

-Ralph

15:11:45 [Zakim]

-Ben_Adida

15:11:46 [Zakim]

-MarkB_

15:11:48 [Zakim]

SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)9:00AM has ended

15:11:49 [Zakim]

Attendees were Ben_Adida, Ralph, Steven, MarkB_

15:12:32 [RalphS]

rrsagent, please make this record public

15:12:36 [RalphS]

rrsagent, please draft minutes

15:12:39 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-minutes.html RalphS

15:12:48 [RalphS]

zakim, bye

15:12:48 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #swbp

16:11:59 [benadida]

benadida has left #swbp

17:44:05 [guus]

guus has joined #swbp

17:45:18 [Guus]

Guus has joined #swbp

17:48:28 [TBaker]

TBaker has joined #swbp

17:50:08 [RalphS_]

RalphS_ has joined #swbp

17:51:02 [RalphS_]

rrsagent, bye

17:51:02 [RRSAgent]

I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-actions.rdf :

17:51:02 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: once Steven sends editors' draft of XHTML2, all TF members take a look and comment on showstopper issues only [1]

17:51:02 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-irc#T14-12-57

17:51:02 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Ben write out a proposal for how OL and UL turn into rdf:Seq and rdf:Bag [2]

17:51:02 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-irc#T14-56-47

17:51:02 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Ben update the editor's draft to add to section 2 [3]

17:51:02 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-irc#T15-11-15