IRC log of rdfa on 2008-06-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:46 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rdfa

14:56:46 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-irc

14:56:49 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #rdfa

14:56:52 [Ralph]

zakim, this will be rdfa

14:56:52 [Zakim]

ok, Ralph; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes

14:57:00 [Ralph]

Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML TF

14:57:23 [Ralph]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jun/0003.html

14:57:50 [Ralph]

-> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-05-29

14:57:57 [Ralph]

rrsagent, please make record public

14:59:30 [Zakim]

SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started

15:00:06 [Zakim]

+Ralph

15:00:12 [Steven]

zakim, dial steven-617

15:00:12 [Zakim]

ok, Steven; the call is being made

15:00:13 [Zakim]

+Steven

15:00:31 [Zakim]

+??P29

15:00:36 [msporny]

zakim, I am ??P29

15:00:36 [Zakim]

+msporny; got it

15:02:31 [benadida]

benadida has joined #rdfa

15:02:52 [benadida]

dialing in now

15:02:57 [Zakim]

+ShaneM

15:03:07 [Ralph]

Chair: Ben

15:03:33 [benadida]

(umm, well trying to dial in now)

15:04:01 [Ralph]

scribe: Ralph

15:04:08 [Zakim]

+Ben_Adida

15:04:18 [benadida]

zakim, who is on the call

15:04:18 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'who is on the call', benadida

15:04:40 [benadida]

zakim, who is on the phone ?

15:04:40 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Ralph, Steven, msporny, ShaneM, Ben_Adida

15:04:44 [Ralph]

Regrets: Michael

15:06:37 [markbirbeck]

markbirbeck has joined #rdfa

15:06:50 [markbirbeck]

zakim, code?

15:06:50 [Zakim]

the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck

15:07:21 [Zakim]

+markbirbeck

15:08:18 [Ralph]

Topic: Action Items

15:08:39 [Ralph]

[DONE] ACTION: Shane draft a TAG response along the lines of "we will update the namespace document, both the prose and the machine-readable and all documents of type XHTML1 have RDF triples" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]

15:08:50 [Ralph]

Shane: this was integrated into Steven's message

15:10:57 [Ralph]

ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL transform transferred to W3C [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]

15:11:01 [Ralph]

-- continues

15:11:30 [Ralph]

Ben: I believe INRIA will be dual-licensing their code under LGPL

15:11:39 [Ralph]

ACTION: Ralph confirm whether LGPL is ok with W3C

15:12:03 [Ralph]

ACTION: Manu to reach out to Slashdot and attempt to get RDFa integrated into Slashdot. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]

15:12:05 [Ralph]

-- continues

15:12:15 [Ralph]

Manu: I've sent email, need to look for a response

15:12:22 [Ralph]

ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

15:12:25 [Ralph]

-- continues

15:12:30 [Ralph]

ACTION: Michael to determine which useless-triples test cases to remove and which to add. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

15:12:43 [Ralph]

-- continues

15:15:59 [Ralph]

Manu: I'll take this action from Michael

15:16:24 [Ralph]

Manu: I've already removed the tests that should be removed

15:16:34 [Ralph]

... I think there are 3 useless-triple test cases that should be added

15:18:31 [Ralph]

ACTION: Manu complete test suite [by Thursday 12 June]

15:22:02 [Ralph]

ACTION: Ralph to help Ben with Last Call Comment report

15:22:16 [Ralph]

Topic: ISSUE-111: XSLT conformance levels

15:22:26 [Ralph]

-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/111 issue 111

15:22:38 [Ralph]

Manu: I've been talking with Ivan and Micah Dubinko about this

15:23:04 [Ralph]

... XSLT implementations will have two problems: whitespace preservation and inclusion of namespaces in XML literals

15:23:18 [Ralph]

... Micah thinks this will be a black mark against RDFa if it requires whitespace preservation

15:23:28 [Ralph]

... and Ivan doesn't like the way we're doing namespaces in XML literals

15:23:46 [ShaneM]

I would just say it is a "SHOULD"

15:23:53 [Ralph]

... Micah suggests that the spec make whitespace preservation optional

15:24:05 [Ralph]

... either for XSLT alone or for all implementations

15:24:16 [Ralph]

Ben: I'm opposed to doing something special for XSLT1

15:24:32 [Ralph]

... if we make whitespace preservation optional, we should do it for all implementations

15:24:58 [Ralph]

Ralph: +1 to not treating XSLT differently

15:25:19 [Ralph]

Ben: if we do make these optional, how will that affect interoperability?

15:25:27 [Ralph]

... will people not be able to rely on XML literals?

15:25:54 [Ralph]

Shane: we decided that whitespace should be preserved

15:26:08 [Ralph]

... and we said the underlying spec determines how namespaces are preserved in XML literals

15:26:29 [Ralph]

... if we make namespace preservation optional, that reduces the utility of that part of the spec in my opinion

15:26:55 [Ralph]

Manu: the namespace problem is that XSLT1 doesn't appear to be able to add xmlns attributes to the top-level element

15:27:28 [Ralph]

... Ivan did say he thought there was a way to get @xmlns into every element but these would overwrite any other @xmlns in those elements, so that would be wrong

15:27:46 [Ralph]

Ben: not carrying the namespaces inside XML literal would simply be wrong

15:28:35 [Ralph]

Manu: there are some large practical implementations

15:30:24 [Ralph]

Ralph: we are not required to show that all implementations fully implement the spec

15:30:45 [Ralph]

... we are only required to show that all features have been implemented somewhere

15:32:25 [Ralph]

Shane: Ben made an important point that we should not make an exception for broken tools

15:33:00 [Ralph]

... if there are tools that can't support the spec, then those are not suitable implementation tools

15:33:15 [Ralph]

Ben: but these shortcomings can point to design issues in the spec

15:33:25 [Ralph]

... I don't feel that the XML Literal design is wrong

15:33:34 [Ralph]

... however, the whitespace preservation could be changed

15:33:49 [Ralph]

Steven: XML does not specify whether whitespace is preserved or not

15:34:13 [Ralph]

... XML says there are two sorts of whitespace preservation; default and preserved

15:34:26 [Ralph]

... you don't know whether 'default' preserves whitespace

15:34:46 [Ralph]

... there's no way XSLT can know how the source language specifys whitespace preservation

15:34:53 [Ralph]

... and the default may be 'preserve'

15:35:05 [Ralph]

... so XSLT has no business touching whitespace at all

15:35:23 [Ralph]

Ben: so I propose we make no change

15:35:27 [msporny]

+1

15:36:19 [Ralph]

Ralph: +1 to no change

15:36:31 [ShaneM]

+1 for no change

15:36:59 [Ralph]

Mark: agree

15:37:32 [Ralph]

... could we slightly change the wording to say 'if you support XML Literals, then this is how you should support them'

15:37:52 [Ralph]

... i.e. we could allow implementations to not support XML Literal

15:40:33 [Ralph]

Ralph: I'd rather we consider these as implementation bugs and let the community experience determine how important it is for any given implementation to fix its bug

15:41:04 [Ralph]

... we decided in favor of whitespace preservation on the basis that those (few?) applications who really cared had no other way to get whitespace

15:41:26 [Ralph]

... the deployment experience can show whether those applications really influence implementations

15:43:05 [benadida]

PROPOSAL: in response to ISSUE-111, we do not believe a change in the spec is necessary. We believe that, architecturally, whitespace and namespace preservation are important. We rely on deployment experience to inform the specifics of complete implementations.

15:43:50 [Steven]

Here's a case <pre about="something" property="my:implementation">function f(a); ... lots of lines ...</pre>

15:44:02 [benadida]

PROPOSAL: in response to ISSUE-111, we do not believe a change in the spec is justified. We believe that, architecturally, whitespace and namespace preservation are important. We rely on deployment experience to ....

15:44:45 [Ralph]

PROPOSAL: in response to ISSUE-111, we do not believe a change in the spec is justifiable. We believe that, architecturally, whitespace and namespace preservation are important. We will rely on deployment experience to inform specific implementation techniques.

15:45:21 [benadida]

+1

15:45:23 [msporny]

+1

15:45:26 [Steven]

+1

15:45:35 [ShaneM]

+1

15:45:37 [Ralph]

RESOLVED: in response to ISSUE-111, we do not believe a change in the spec is justifiable. We believe that, architecturally, whitespace and namespace preservation are important. We will rely on deployment experience to inform specific implementation techniques.

15:45:55 [Ralph]

Topic: ISSUE-113: document fragments

15:46:06 [Steven]

q+ to discuss follow your nose

15:46:08 [Ralph]

-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/113 issue 113

15:46:34 [benadida]

I'd drafted : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0030.html

15:46:48 [Ralph]

Ben: we've been careful to specify that triples are only present in complete documents

15:47:11 [ShaneM]

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080603/#sec_3.9.

15:47:22 [Ralph]

Ben: any objections to 0030 ?

15:48:40 [markbirbeck]

I think "dataRSS" is "DataRSS".

15:49:01 [Steven]

Two many "only"s in that sentence

15:49:01 [ShaneM]

kk thanks

15:49:02 [Ralph]

Ralph: the critical sentence is the first one in the last paragraph of 3.9. I support this

15:49:17 [msporny]

+1 to the language in http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080603/#sec_3.9.

15:49:42 [Steven]

"and thus only yield their true triples only once they are placed"

15:50:40 [Ralph]

Mark: is this actually responding to the question?

15:50:59 [Ralph]

... in the spirit of allowing experimentation, I'd prefer not to be so strict

15:51:10 [Ralph]

... just say that to determine the triples you need the full document context

15:52:06 [Steven]

What about multi namespace documents?

15:53:21 [Steven]

q+ totalk on fragments

15:53:32 [Steven]

q+ to talk about fragments

15:53:52 [Zakim]

Steven, you wanted to discuss follow your nose and to talk about fragments

15:54:25 [Ralph]

Steven: my worry is the wording that triples are only revealed in the full document context

15:54:28 [ShaneM]

q+ to talk about triple extraction

15:54:34 [Ralph]

... I'd like SVG fragments to contain triples

15:54:53 [Ralph]

Ben: I believe there will be applications that do extract triples from DataRSS

15:55:06 [Ralph]

... but I think we need to defer the standardization of that for a future version

15:55:31 [Ralph]

Mark: the current language is more rigid than we need

15:56:11 [Ralph]

Steven: I'd say "only once they are placed in complete documents"

15:56:32 [Ralph]

Mark: if we're trying to address "be careful when you put fragments in" then just say that

15:57:45 [Ralph]

PROPOSE: s/fragments only have all of their context and thus only yield their true triples only once they are placed within"/triples in fragments must be interpreted in the context of a"

15:58:14 [Ralph]

Steven: I'm just asking that RDF triples be extractable from SVG+

15:58:24 [Ralph]

Shane: but this spec is not covering SVG

16:00:32 [Steven]

But it is covering the xhtml namespace

16:02:10 [ShaneM]

I think that means it would read like this: <p>While these uses are legitimate, and their results may be predictable if the fragments are carefully constructed, remember that XHTML+RDFa is not specified for XHTML fragments; triples in fragments must be interpreted in the context

16:02:10 [ShaneM]

of a complete XHTML+RDFa document.

16:02:10 [ShaneM]

Consequently, authors should craft these fragments carefully and

16:02:10 [ShaneM]

consider the various ways in which a given fragment can be framed.</p>

16:02:17 [Ralph]

Ralph: and, specifically, in response to Micah's request that opened issue 113 we're explicitly _not_ specifying processing rules for fragments

16:02:52 [Ralph]

Steven: but some folks claim there is no XHTML on the Web today because they strictly apply the specifications and don't find documents that use the correct media type

16:03:30 [Ralph]

... it may depend on what Micah means by 'fragments'

16:03:46 [markbirbeck]

"A common situation will be to take fragments of XHTML+RDFa and move them from one document to another. This may be through the use of tools, such as cut-and-paste, or through snippets of code that are provided by organisations such as Creative Commons. However, authors should be aware that this specification does not say how these fragments should be processed outside of a document (although future versions will address this). They can of course be in

16:04:07 [Ralph]

... if he's thinking of multiple namespace documents then it is bad to exclude RDFa from them

16:04:19 [Ralph]

Ralph: Micah's message specifically referred to copy-and-paste

16:04:42 [Ralph]

Ben: WAI PF WG also mentioned fragments

16:05:50 [Ralph]

Steven: but if Micah is only referring to bits of XHTML lying around, then we're fine

16:07:24 [benadida]

PROPOSE: resolve ISSUE-113 as "we will not be specifying processing rules for fragments, though a future version of the spec may do so. We don't rule out the use case."

16:07:39 [Ralph]

Ralph: +1 to proposal

16:07:50 [Steven]

+1

16:08:02 [msporny]

+1

16:08:06 [markbirbeck]

+1

16:08:12 [Ralph]

Shane: ok

16:08:32 [Ralph]

RESOLVED: close ISSUE-113 as "we will not be specifying processing rules for fragments, though a future version of the spec may do so. We don't rule out the use case."

16:08:53 [benadida]

ACTION: Mark to tweak paragraph 3.9 of the spec on fragments.

16:09:25 [benadida]

zakim, ack Steven

16:09:25 [Zakim]

I see Ralph, ShaneM on the speaker queue

16:09:25 [Ralph]

Topic: TAG comments

16:09:41 [ShaneM]

q-

16:09:42 [Ralph]

Steven: we're discussing the wording of the response

16:09:49 [Ralph]

... issue about the media type

16:10:15 [Ralph]

... our reply is along the lines of 'HTML and XHTML have always contained assertions and this is just another way to express those assertions'

16:10:47 [Ralph]

... I think this is completely independent of media type because of mixed-namespace documents

16:11:01 [Ralph]

... you can't tell from the media type whether a document actually uses the XHTML namespace

16:11:38 [Ralph]

... our XHTML namespace tells you how to interpret the XHTML attributes [in a mixed-namespace document]

16:12:31 [Ralph]

Shane: the got-ya here is that some TAG participants view media type as an announcement mechanism

16:12:46 [Ralph]

... and we're saying "no, media type is not an announcement mechanism"

16:14:06 [Ralph]

Steven: ok, now I'm ready to send the response to the TAG

16:14:36 [Ralph]

ACTION: Shane produce a CR-ready draft for SWD and XHTML2 WGs to approve

16:15:07 [Ralph]

Shane++

16:15:57 [ShaneM]

Note that the week of the 16th is ugly for a transition call - please start scheduling it ASAP!

16:16:17 [Ralph]

Topic: Clean Room implementation status

16:16:21 [Ralph]

Ben: I'm well along with this

16:16:34 [Ralph]

... the only problems I'm having have nothing to do with the spec

16:16:56 [Ralph]

... the general structure with deep @rel, chaining, etc. is working for me just fine in Ruby

16:17:05 [Ralph]

Ben++

16:17:08 [Ralph]

[adjourned]

16:17:10 [Zakim]

-ShaneM

16:17:11 [Zakim]

-msporny

16:17:11 [Zakim]

-markbirbeck

16:17:13 [Zakim]

-Steven

16:24:31 [Zakim]

-Ralph

16:24:33 [Zakim]

-Ben_Adida

16:24:33 [Zakim]

SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended

16:24:35 [Zakim]

Attendees were Ralph, Steven, msporny, ShaneM, Ben_Adida, markbirbeck

16:24:38 [Ralph]

rrsagent, please draft minutes

16:24:38 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph

16:25:17 [Ralph]

zakim, bye

16:25:18 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #rdfa

16:25:41 [Ralph]

rrsagent, bye

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

I see 9 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-actions.rdf :

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL transform transferred to W3C [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] [1]

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-irc#T15-10-57

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Ralph confirm whether LGPL is ok with W3C [2]

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-irc#T15-11-39

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Manu to reach out to Slashdot and attempt to get RDFa integrated into Slashdot. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action10] [3]

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-irc#T15-12-03

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [4]

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-irc#T15-12-22

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Michael to determine which useless-triples test cases to remove and which to add. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [5]

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-irc#T15-12-30

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Manu complete test suite [by Thursday 12 June] [6]

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-irc#T15-18-31

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Ralph to help Ben with Last Call Comment report [7]

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-irc#T15-22-02

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Mark to tweak paragraph 3.9 of the spec on fragments. [8]

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-irc#T16-08-53

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Shane produce a CR-ready draft for SWD and XHTML2 WGs to approve [9]

16:25:41 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-irc#T16-14-36