See also: IRC log
<scribe> ACTION: [NEW] Michael add @xml:base issue to tracker [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
mh: This is the same as issue 57
... we should merge
Steven: The XHTML2 WG discussed this this week and have an opinion
Ben: We have two isses 57 and 59, raised and
not opened
... let us accept 59 as open issue
<benadida> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/59
<scribe> -- done
Ben: Let us agree that we need to deal with
this issue
... disagreement?
... On hearing none, I will make it an open issue
<scribe> ACTION: [NEW] Mark summarize in mail host language-dependent issues such as @lang and @xml:lang [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: [NEW] Michael remove excess xmlns: declarations from test cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action10] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to look into Science Commons use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/11-htmltf-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to recontact implementors Elias, MarkB, triplr and post their implementations to http://esw.w3.org/topic/RDFa#Implementations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/02-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
Ben: I will contact Fabian as well
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to sum up @href/@resource everywhere proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action10] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to work through xml:lang issue with Ivan [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/02-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
Ben: Maybe irrelevant after Mark's email. We'll look at it next week
mh: Needs resolving for the test cases
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Elias to send email to list with use case from IBM [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/04-htmltf-minutes.html#action10] [WITHDRAWN]
Ben: Things are changing at IBM, not sure if Elias will rejoin the calls
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Aug/0015.html
mh: We did 29-33 last week, so all is well
... see last week's minutes
Ben: So I haven't caught up with emails yet.
Ben: Steven, please look at the test cases that we approved last week
<scribe> ACTION: Steven to check test cases 29-33 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/16-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
mh: Take a look at the wiki page
Ben: Any other test cases?
mh: All dependent on open issues
<scribe> ACTION: mh to add a test case for @src [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/16-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
Ben: So rather than depending on the CURIE spec the proposal is that we hardwire the CURIE syntax into the RDFa spec
<mhausenblas> blog post on this issue
mh: This was an interesting blog
Mark: This blog convinced me that we need to
mention CURIEs explicitely
... the author just talks about a mess, and we should show we have a good
solution
... we have updated the CURIEs document with a better syntax so that we can
either insert the text or refer to it, however we want
... we will be raising and promoting the document
Steven: There has been a suggestion we should have a CURIE session at the TP
Ben: I agree that this is the right technical solution. The problem is the politics
Mark: I don't think it is as bad as you think,
but I don't mind if we don't argue about this one, as long as we don't
resolve "we won't use CURIEs"
... especially in the light of SPARQL doing the right thing
Ben: If we include the text now, and come last call hope that people will say "Why aren't you referring to the CURIE spec?"
Mark: Good
Ben: So the question to be asked "Do we use QNames or CURIEs?" is answered at first with "We do not use QNames"
<mhausenblas> +1
Mark: And refer to the SPARQL case
... which uses the exact same entry in the IRI syntax as we do
<benadida> Propose to RESOLVE: RDFa does not use QNames for shortening URIs, as that is technically incorrect. We use the equivalent of CURIEs, exactly as SPARQL. We will include the definition of CURIES inline with the RDFa syntax, though we may eventually choose to refer to the CURIE doc instead.
Ben: So we use the equivalent of CURIEs exactly as SPARQL
Steven: Second
<mhausenblas> +1
Mark: Agree.
RESOLUTION: RDFa does not use QNames for shortening URIs, as that is technically incorrect. We use the equivalent of CURIEs, exactly as SPARQL. We will include the definition of CURIES inline with the RDFa syntax, though we may eventually choose to refer to the CURIE doc instead.
Ben: @src on img element
... We haven't voted; but we're going to try it in implementations
... to see what breaks
<benadida> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0209.html
Ben: The main idea is that @src will behave like @href
mh: With lower priority
Ben: We could decide that later
... So we need a test case, to drive the implementors
<scribe> ACTION: mh to write an img@src test case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/16-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to update the bookmarklet to handle img@src [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/16-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
Ben: Status?
Mark: We are working on CURIEs
... next stop is the syntax document
Ben: As soon as possible we should have an editor's draft of the doc
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts/#rdfa-syntax
Steven: We have a URL for the editor's draft
<mhausenblas> Michael: In -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Aug/0134.html I asked about @resouce usage
Ben: I have been added to the CVS mails, and that's great
Steven: There are no differences yet to the
current document
... it has only been entered into the XHTML2 pub system
Ben: On the primer, there are no massive
changes needed, but there are a few
... for instance for @resource
... there is no resolution on instanceof yet, we need to move
that one on
<benadida> Michael's proposal: As per TAG finding httpRange-14 [5] the value of @href MUST be an information resource, and the value of @resource MAY be an information resource. RDFa authors SHALL use a URI that identifies a non-information resources for the value of @resource.
<mhausenblas> Michael: as of -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Aug/0134.html
Ben: I disagree slightly
... it seems to be overstepping our bounds
Mark: I totally agree
... HTML doesn't say what can go in an href, so we shouldn't either
Ben: This seems more like a best practice than
a MUST
... and maybe a wiki page on best practice would be a good idea
mh: This was a proposal to make things clear
... like we do with CURIEs
... but I'm happy with what you said
Mark: There is no difference between a resource
and a non-resource
... I only wanted to make it possible to make a non-clickable reference to a
non-resource
mh: It is an RDF issue, not an RDFa issue
Mark: The difference won't show up in the triples
Ben: I propose a resolution
... that we won't require this proposal, but that we will create a best
practices document
<benadida> proposed RESOLUTION: we do not place restrictions on the URIs in @href and @resource, but we will create a wiki page of good practices for certain use cases.
Mark: Let's make sure the examples are in the primer, and not labour the point
<mhausenblas> +1
mh: I second
RESOLUTION: we do not place restrictions on the URIs in @href and @resource, but we will create a wiki page of good practices for certain use cases.
<scribe> ACTION: mh to create best practices wiki page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/16-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to work test cases 31 and 32 into primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/16-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
Ben: Mark's email looks like it is about greater context than XHTML 1.1
Mark: I tried to think of things we would want
(rel paths, mappings, and lang) that it would be wrong for us to define
... since it should come from the host language
... xml:base comes into that category
Steven: I propose we say that URI processing is defined by the host language
Ben: So in XHTML 1.1 it would be the base element and not xml:base that applies
Mark: We should understand xml:base, but not impose it on langauges
<mhausenblas> Michael: XML Base is clearly defined in -> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
Mark: The XHTML2 WG may add an xml:base module
for use in other languages
... But we don't know what the application supports
... we have to process it if we find it
Ben: My application outsources the work to the
browser
... it does the resolution for me
mh: Then you depend on the browser
Steven: What would Google do if it processed RDFa?
Mark: So in my processor I always process
xml:base
... but you are suggesting that if I am not in XML mode, I have to detect
what I *am* processing
... I can live with that
<mhausenblas> Michael: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFaInHTML needs an update
Ben: So in XHTML 1.1 xml:base has no effect (assuming we can detect that it is XHTML 1.1)
<mhausenblas> +1
Ben: So resolved
RESOLUTION: in XHTML 1.1 xml:base has no effect
[adjourn]