RDF in XHTML Task Force

Action Items

benadida: pretty short agenda today

action items, implementation report, edits on the primer, HTML 4/5 thoughts

benadida: we don't want to overstep our charter, all we can do is outline how it could work on the wiki

ACTION: Ben to log all CR issues to tracker [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]

ACTION: Manu: Start Best Practices Section on the rdfa.info wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action16] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Shane respond to commentor for ISSUE-121 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]

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] [DONE]

<Ralph> PROPOSE: http://www.w3.org/2008/07/rdfa-xslt

<Ralph> PROPOSE: http://www.w3.org/2008/07/rdfa10-xslt

<benadida> +1 to non-dated version

benadida: do we have a W3C address for the XSLT?

<msporny> +1 to non-dated version

<benadida> +1 to non-versioned, I mean.

<msporny> +1 to non-versioned :)

RESOLUTION: To use http://www.w3.org/2008/07/rdfa-xslt as the XSLT transform URL.

ACTION: Ralph to make http://www.w3.org/2008/07/rdfa-xslt happen [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]

ACTION: Shane to update XHTML ns document to point to new XSLT URI [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]

Shane: I'm interested in follow-your-nose concept, it would be good to test this stuff.

ACTION: Jeremy to demonstrate GRDDL with XHTML/RDFa once the NS URI is set up. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]

ACTION: Ben to follow up with Elias on JavaScript test harness + EARL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] [DONE]

ACTION: Ben to talk to Alan about CR ISSUE-122 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-rdfa-minutes.html#action15] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Jeremy to write up TQ's contribution for impl report and wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-rdfa-minutes.html#action16] [DONE]

ACTION: Jeremy to add TQ's contribution for impl report to wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]

ACTION: Manu write the perl code for Slashdot [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-rdfa-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]

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

ACTION: Michael to rewrite and extend http://rdfa.info/wiki/Tutorials for RSS (maybe with seq) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-rdfa-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Shane to write home page for SPREAD. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [CONTINUES]

Implementation Report

benadida: our deadline was last friday for CR
... We have TQ's contribution
... We have a couple of issues and we believe that Alan's issues are not significant, but there are editorial issues we need to deal with.

Ralph: I'm sure we'll need to make editorial changes

benadida: we also need to update the primer.
... it would be good to time it together so we publish both syntax and primer at the same time.

ShaneM: disagree - update the primer immediately.
... The next time we publish, it must be PR, it's harder to do that than publish a new version of the primer.

Jeremy: We can publish another CR.

Ralph: but we don't really want to.
... Our next document should be the final one.

benadida: August is upon us, is there an issue with that?

Ralph: Nobody will read it.

benadida: we have to give extra time in september for people to read it when they get back.
... is it Michael or you Manu that have to put the implementation report together?

manu: Michael has the XSLT transform.

Ralph: we have to worry about the deployment workgroup schedule.

benadida: isn't there a call next week?

Ralph: next week, august 5th, and august 19th.

benadida: Do we need reviewers for editorial changes?
... we need it for PR definitely.
... I think next week we need reviewers from the WG for PR.

Ralph: When will we have a document for them?

benadida: Is 2 weeks from now sufficient?
... Could we shoot for the 19th for approval?

Ralph: very ambitious, don't think it can happen in time.

benadida: What could be the issue?

Ralph: Alan asked some important questions about our examples, they're editorial, but we should look at it again.
... Alan believes there is some fundamental architectural issue, we believe these are editorial.
... My point is, I don't know if we can resolve Issue 122 in two weeks.

ACTION: Ben to tease out the more involved aspects of ISSUE-122 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action19]

benadida: I'd like thoughts on what we need to do on that after I send the issues out.
... based on what that looks like, we can give an update to the WG next week.
... We could shoot for Aug 19th to give them the document.
... we should get Mark's input before the 12th.
... 2008-08-19 doc ready for review.
... two weeks later document ready for PR.
... any issues with this schedule?
... august is going to be quiet anyway, two weeks won't make too much of a difference.

Ralph: I'll be gone sept. 9-18th
... if we can have all of our evidence by sept. 2nd, that would be good.

RDFa and HTML4/5

benadida: you don't like "HTML" instead of "XHTML" in the Primer?

Manu: I've pointed a couple of people at the Primer and they immediately assume they can use RDFa with HTML4

Ben: but they _can_

Manu: then I have to have a conversation about why it's OK if your document doesn't validate
... and people don't believe this

Jeremy: add a paragraph explaining that while validation of HTML4+RDFa won't work, everything else will

Ben: I'm skeptical about those who demand validation because many of them have Web sites that don't validate

Manu: a practical reason not to encourage documents that won't validate ...
... fuzzbot by default tries to use XHTML and if this fails it falls back to HTML+tidy
... if people can't validate their document then fuzzbot's fallback mechanism has a side effect (via tidy) of stripping out the RDFa

Ben: if I forget a close tag, what happens?

Manu: Firefox will complain first, depending on the user's choice of mode

Ben: consider XHTML1.1+RDFa -- FireFox will recover, what will fuzzbot do?

Manu: if the document doesn't validate, fuzzbot won't find the triples
... the issue is that tidy destroys the invalid markup

Ben: Ivan's approach is to try XHTML and if that fails then use the HTML5 DOM interface
... this seems to work out well

Jeremy: doesn't this depend on which tidy options are used?
... [TopQuadrant is] using jtidy with success
... it's not the case that tidy needs to discard [the RDFa] markup

Manu: the fundamental point is that for those cases where validation really does matter, we can't encourage HTML+RDFa right now. We can't just ignore those users

Ben: the next logical step in this work is to take up the HTML4/5+RDFa question

Shane: when Manu says 'valid', I think he really means 'well-formed'

Manu: correct

Shane: we can work with well-formed documents

Ben: it's not hard to rely on whatever the browser does in its DOM

Shane: not hard if you're writing a browser-based tool

Manu: I agree that tools should do everything they can to extract the triples
... but it's dangerous for W3C to say "don't worry about validation"

Jeremy: it's not that we're _recommending_ using this markup in HTML
... from a tool vendor's point of view it's a fact of life that there's bad HTML out there
... we just have to work with it
... tool vendors and browser vendors _do_ work with the bad HTML that's out there
... it's a strength of the Web that authors don't need a lot of technical ability
... I'm in favor of the Primer saying "HTML" throughout

Jeremy: and that a seriously strong warning [about validation] would address the concern

Shane: we've been chartered to work with SWD and XHTML2 to find ways to put RDF into XHTML
... our charter is only to address XHTML

benadida: you're correct.
... this is a question we knew that was coming down the line.
... If we say we weren't chartered to do that, it's not a good answer.

ShaneM: we should be championing use in HTML... we shouldn't put it in the Primer.

Ralph: The charter was written when we thought that there would only be XHTML.
... it's not out of line for us to ask to re-open thinking about modularizing RDFa to HTML 4, XHTML and HTML 5
... We could add something stating that XHTML is a kind of HTML for the purposes of the Primer.

benadida: would it be acceptable if we described XHTML as a subclass as HTML?

ShaneM: No.
... nobody would say that XHTML is a form of HTML.

Ralph: I think Tim might use language like "There is an HTML family, of which XHTML, HTML4 and HTML5 are all members of this family."

benadida: Don't want cognitive load of XHTML to be on the reader's mind.

Manu: it's bad practice to talk in the document about things that _might_ happen in the future
... talk about things that do work today
... we should be describing best practices

ShaneM: Let me tell you who does care - the W3C.
... We can't take that position.
... we can't have a W3C document that says "put whatever you want in an HTML document"

Ralph: I don't know what the view is on that - re: Tim - how does validation work, how should it work?
... Jeremy has a very pragmatic approach to this.
... We like to define stuff that has predictable results for everyone.
... People like having standards so they can point to bugs in software and ask vendors to fix those bugs.
... The XML community took a hard stance when you get a non-well formed document.
... There is tension in that community because of that stance.
... tool vendors take a very pragmatic approach.
... The question is, what can we say in the document to allow users some flexibility?

Jeremy: We could change it all to XHTML and put in a paragraph talking about it being useful in HTML4.

Ralph: Those that care about valid documents will point to the Primer and use it against us, those that don't care about validation won't care.

benadida: is that okay with you Shane?

ShaneM: I think so.
... I'm more interested in HTML4 and RDFa right now, I just don't want to mislead the readers of the Primer.

Ralph: We believe this is the right solution so we're trying to get this in as many places as possible.

PROPOSE: to change HTML to XHTML in Primer and add a short section pointing out that implementations may well accept RDFa in HTML though those documents won't validate.

<msporny>+1

<Ralph> +1

<benadida> +1 (grumble)

<ShaneM> +1 (also grumble)

RESOLUTION: Change HTML to XHTML in Primer and add a short section pointing out that implementations may well accept RDFa in HTML though those documents won't validate.

Ralph: not only "implementations may well accept" but "we have designed RDFa to make it easy for applications to accept"

ACTION: Ben to update Primer according to resolution, and add note about "it was designed to eventually work in HTML, etc..." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action20]

benadida: We might want to start a page on the wiki on HTML 4 and HTML 5.

ShaneM: We could do it as a member submission.

Ralph: you could also do it as an incubator group.

ACTION: Manu to start a wiki page for HTML4/5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action21]

ShaneM: let's setup an wiki page.

$Log: 24-rdfa-minutes.html,v $
Revision 1.5  2008/07/24 18:23:36  swick
Add missing headng for topic 3



  Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
  version 1.133 (CVS
  log)

  $Date: 2008/07/24 18:23:36 $