15:52:51 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 15:52:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-rdfa-irc 15:52:56 Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML Task Force 15:53:10 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Feb/0178.html 15:53:44 -> http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-rdfa-minutes.html previous non-meeting 15:53:56 -> http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-01-22 15:54:01 s/2008/2009 15:54:17 rrsagent, please make record public 15:54:22 zakim, this will be rdfa 15:54:22 ok, Ralph; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 15:55:18 msporny has joined #rdfa 15:59:23 SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started 15:59:31 +??P31 15:59:37 Zakim, I am ??P31 15:59:37 +msporny; got it 15:59:45 Morning, Ralph :) 16:00:24 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 16:01:33 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:01:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-rdfa-minutes.html msporny 16:02:02 rrsagent, make log public 16:02:29 yipes... 16:02:34 +??P49 16:02:46 zakim, ??P49 is ShaneM 16:02:46 +ShaneM; got it 16:02:55 Scribe: Manu_Sporny 16:03:05 ScribeNick: msporny 16:03:16 Meeting: RDF in XHTML Task Force 16:03:28 Chair: Ben_Adida 16:03:39 +Ralph 16:04:10 +Ben_Adida 16:04:17 benadida has joined #rdfa 16:04:31 scribenick: ralph 16:05:06 scribe: Ralph 16:05:27 zakim, who's on the call? 16:05:27 On the phone I see msporny, ShaneM, Ralph, Ben_Adida 16:07:32 [DONE] ACTION: Manu to create design tests for @prefix and @profile. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action16] 16:07:40 Topic: Action Review 16:07:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Feb/0180.html 16:07:57 Manu: see my mail 16:08:17 ... I showed a first pass of three styles of markup 16:08:38 TomB has joined #rdfa 16:09:09 [DROPPED] ACTION: Ben to add public-rdfa examples to wiki and think of slightly improved top-level organization [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] 16:09:25 Ben: I did a reorganization of the wiki then Manu added way more than this action require 16:09:27 d 16:09:36 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Ben to put up information on "how to write RDFa" with screencast possibly and instructions on bookmarklet. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] 16:10:04 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Ralph or Steven fix the .htaccess for the XHTML namespace [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] 16:10:34 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Jeremy to demonstrate GRDDL with XHTML/RDFa once the NS URI is set up. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action03] 16:10:37 Ralph: drop this? 16:10:48 Ben: I'd like to ping Jeremy; I'd like to see this 16:11:01 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Manu to create TC to test @resource="[]" does not set object based on TC 123. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action14] 16:11:11 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Manu to look at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Dec/0037.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action15] 16:11:29 Manu: I sent an email, no response yet 16:11:36 +??P4 16:11:44 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases for Ivan. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] 16:11:47 zakim, ??p4 is TomB 16:11:47 +TomB; got it 16:12:02 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] 16:12:06 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Mark to review reasoning on setting explicit about="" on HEAD and BODY [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/18-rdfa-irc] 16:12:14 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Mark to send Ben ubiquity related wizard stuff [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] 16:12:18 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] 16:12:36 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14] 16:12:40 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15] 16:13:19 Topic: @prefix, specifically @prefix on HEAD 16:13:28 Ben: I'd like to talk about this in concert with the test cases 16:14:00 [[ 16:14:01 I see from the discussion on January 22 that there was talk of allowing 16:14:01 @prefix on HEAD to apply to the BODY, but I think we had clearly said in 16:14:01 prior discussions that this shouldn't happen, because of the SAX-based 16:14:01 processing of documents. We need to clarify this. 16:14:02 ]] 16:14:12 -- Ben, in -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Feb/0178.html email 16:14:28 Ben: am I correct in my interpretation of that 22-Jan discussion? 16:14:37 ... @prefix on HEAD would apply to BODY also? 16:14:42 Manu: yes, that was the discussion 16:14:45 markbirbeck has joined #rdfa 16:14:48 ... we didn't get too deeply into this 16:14:59 ... Mark did propose this would be nice 16:14:59 zakim, code? 16:14:59 the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck 16:15:02 regrets+ Steven 16:15:24 http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/ 16:15:31 Manu: there are 3 variations on @prefix syntax 16:15:42 +??P5 16:15:46 ... select 'Design Test Suite' and 'Unreviewed' 16:15:51 zakim, i am ?p5 16:15:51 sorry, markbirbeck, I do not see a party named '?p5' 16:16:06 just listening (muted) 16:16:15 zakim, ??p5 16:16:15 I don't understand '??p5', markbirbeck 16:16:29 zakim, i am ? 16:16:29 +markbirbeck; got it 16:16:52 :-) 16:17:16 "We will serve no predicate before its time" 16:17:41 -- test 9001 16:17:41 http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/ 16:17:56 -- test 9001: Establishing @prefix on HTML element 16:18:24 Manu: the purpose of these tests is just to provide a starting point for the design discussion 16:18:34 http://rdfa.info/wiki/design-suite 16:18:55 -> http://rdfa.info/wiki/Design-suite#9001 explanation of purpose of test 9001 16:19:39 Manu: 9002 shows a CSS-like syntax, 9003 shows an '=' syntax 16:19:49 ... I prefer the '=' syntax, as does Toby Inkster 16:20:15 Ben: three decisions; what to call this @ttribute, what's the value syntax, what's the parsing model 16:20:44 Mark: sounds right. the name is the least important 16:20:59 Ben: the 3 test assume @prefix for the name and the same parsing model as @xmlns 16:21:07 ... they're testing for the value syntax options 16:21:11 Manu: correct 16:21:49 Ben: note that none of this discussion is really in scope for this Task Force 16:22:11 ... we're producing some notes on how to proceed 16:22:25 q+ 16:22:32 q+ 16:22:37 ... should we make a decision, or should we just note these options and leave it to whatever group is chartered to decide? 16:23:02 ... people who do implement these sorts of things tend to implement quickly 16:23:10 ... Manu's already done something, as has Ivan 16:23:19 ... if we agree amongst ourselves this is a big step 16:23:29 ... could be a Note for a year or so 16:23:38 ... this would at least put it 'there' 16:23:54 ... already some useful discussions around named graphs 16:24:14 ... it would be good to converge on a way of approaching these even if we don't have a place to put the formal state of this convergence 16:24:29 +1 for going as far as we can with the syntax for @prefix 16:24:36 Ben: so we might proceed on the understanding that whatever we 'decide' can be overturned later 16:24:52 Shane: we're likely to be participants in whatever discussion is chartered 16:25:10 ... the XHTML2 WG can proceed now if it chooses 16:25:25 ... addition of @profile to the XHTML module would be covered by our current WG charter 16:27:17 q+ 16:27:27 ack shanem 16:27:58 q+ to discuss xmlns: and XML parsing rules 16:29:18 Ralph: the SVG folk are pushing on @xmlns support in HTML as well 16:29:28 ... SVG Tiny has fully incorporated RDFa 16:29:40 ... and SVG itself uses @xmlns 16:29:58 When Doug and I were talking at WDN09 - I found a wierd issue with him using xlink:href to specify hrefs in his SVG - it would break a RDFa parser as he marked it up. 16:30:01 ... so are we diluting our message if we add a syntactic alternative? 16:30:14 Mark: it doesn't hurt to have both @xmlns and @prefix in the same document 16:30:33 ... we consciously left open this scope in the CURIE spec 16:30:56 ... the wording says that XML documents should support @xmlns 16:31:05 ... but leaves open the possibility of alternatives 16:31:36 Shane: CURIE is Candidate Rec 16:31:58 ... it is correct that alternative mechanisms are permitted by the CURIE spec 16:32:14 ... the CURIE spec itself does not define any attributes 16:32:23 ... the XHTML2 spec defines the mapping mechanism 16:32:42 ShaneM, you wanted to discuss xmlns: and XML parsing rules 16:33:16 Shane: there's been a good argument in the recent days about why @xmlns: is not isomorphic w.r.t. processing model between HTML5 and XML 16:33:42 ... if we say that the attribute name "xmlns:foo" should be treated as a token, 16:33:59 ... the truth is that in the XML DOM a real parser should not be passing this token through 16:34:16 ... the actual name of the attribute is 'foo' in the XML namespace, not a string 'xmlns:foo' 16:34:33 ... @xml... is a reserved namespace 16:34:47 Mark: doesn't the API allow the application to retrieve the full name of the attribute? 16:35:16 Manu: I thought Henri was specifically referring to XOM 16:35:39 ... the level 1 API would be fine but the level 2 API would filter xmlns:foo to something else 16:36:19 Mark: but the argument was that an HTML5 processor _would_ give access to the full xmlns:foo whereas an XML pipeline would not 16:36:32 ... so why would an application that wants the full string use such an XML pipeline? 16:36:52 Manu: the point was that the cost is not zero as we've claimed 16:37:33 +1 for prefix instead of xmlns: 16:37:34 +10 16:37:37 Ben: independent of Henri's argument, do we feel that adding @prefix would be prefereable 16:38:14 Ralph: are you just talking about a synonym for @xmlns for CURIE prefixes? 16:38:38 ... or the added features of the value that are under discussion? 16:38:53 Mark: if we hadn't chosen @xmlns we'd be in deeper trouble 16:39:23 Ben: there's an argument that @xmlns is working better than expected; we _can_ actually get to it in the browsers 16:39:28 me agrees - we needed to use xmlns: for XHTML, but we should provide @prefix as an alternative. 16:39:39 ... there's another argument that even if it is working it comes at a cost and we should move to @prefix anyway 16:40:03 Ralph: but what _are_ the costs? I see huge costs in destabilizing a sapec 16:40:07 s/sapec/spec 16:40:21 Mark: we're also talking about changing the processing model a bit 16:40:36 ... currently we don't provide a way to import a bunch of mappings 16:41:22 ... my main argument in favor of a new attribute is to add a feature to come closer to [the simplicity of] microformat 16:41:47 Ben: I was trying to separate the two issues; new features vs. name 16:41:55 Ralph: I don't think you can separate these questions now 16:42:13 Mark: namespaces have never really been resolved in terms of attribute contents 16:42:35 ... so with a new attribute we could avoid some of the mistakes of namespaces 16:43:04 Ben: so if @prefix works exactly like @xmlns, are you leaning to preferring it? 16:43:07 Manu, Shane: yes 16:43:34 Manu: we're not talking about removing @xmlns; that would destabilize it 16:43:44 ... just adding @prefix as an alternative 16:44:07 Mark: the RDFa spec says that if @xmlns: is present, it should be processed 16:44:18 q+ to discuss extending list of reserved @rel values 16:44:27 ... we'd still process both @xmlns and @prefix 16:44:48 ... in the CURIE spec I'm pretty sure we require that XML processors support @xmlns 16:44:59 CURIE spec says "When CURIES are used in an XML-based host language, and that host language supports XML Namespaces, prefix values MUST be able to be defined using the 'xmlns:' syntax specified in [XMLNAMES]. Such host languages MAY also provide additional prefix mapping definition mechanisms." 16:45:15 Ben: in terms of the spec, we don't talk about HTML documents currently so I think we're safe adding @prefix 16:45:23 ... we do have to talk about the precedence of @xmlns and @prefix 16:45:46 ... if we specified that @xmlns has precedence then we'd have a level of backward compatiblity for old XHTML parsers 16:46:49 Mark: sort-of; new parsers would generate more triples but the triples generated by an old parser would match that same subset generated by a new parser 16:49:20 Ben: a note from this TF suggesting that @prefix is a way forward would carry some weight 16:49:44 Mark: we could argue that @prefix is a token substitution before the RDFa processing is invoked 16:49:55 XHTML 1.2 could introduce @prefix 16:50:06 Ben: but that would mean that the RDFa Recommendation no longer is sufficient to implement an RDFa processor 16:50:17 who's working on XHTML 1.2, Shane? 16:50:38 Mark: if @prefix is not introduced by some group with some authority then the HTML WG [might not give it any attention] 16:50:56 ... the XHTML2 WG could give this a home and then in the future we harmonize the two 16:51:09 Ben: test cases using @prefix would have to live somewhere 16:51:15 Mark: could be on a Wiki 16:52:02 ... a Last Call comment on CURIE would allow the XHTML2 WG to be on the record 16:52:13 ... as supporting it for some future version 16:52:37 Ben: do we want to say that RDFa parsers should start supporting @prefix soon? 16:52:52 ... if we want @prefix to be supported in both HTML and XHTML 16:53:05 ... so we'd recommend that new markup use @prefix instead of @xmlns 16:53:31 ... so some document at some time in the future should say how to write such a new RDFa parser 16:54:12 Mark: given our recent experience of HTML5 discussions, it's asking for trouble if we base this on trying to find some accommodation 16:54:25 ... whereas if we say we really believe this [independently], we have a stronger argument 16:55:17 Ben: sounds like we'd want to update the RDFa specification to add @prefix to it 16:55:20 I think that we could successfully do this as a "PER" second edition of RDFa Syntax 1.0 16:55:25 ... @xmlns would still be supported 16:59:00 Ralph: it would be harmful for this group to push for XML documents that do not conform to the W3C Recommendation 16:59:20 ... so I am opposed to adding @prefix without updating the Recommendation 16:59:48 ... the cost of updating the Recommendation could be justified if the update included new features as well 17:00:33 ... a possible new feature is the value syntax for @prefix 17:01:41 Shane: the XHTML2 WG could update the RDFa Recommendation 17:01:45 Ralph: yes, that's plausible 17:02:46 Ben: so wiki pages, test cases, etc. should have large disclaimers right now saying @prefix is experimental 17:03:49 ... path forward could be to keep this discussion in the wiki as experimental, talk with implementors, work out details in the experimental wiki page 17:03:53 Manu: yes 17:04:59 Mark: I'm a bit uneasy as there are documents being circulated that look like specifications when they should really be blogs 17:05:27 ... and the wiki might start to look like a specification too 17:05:40 ... the wiki shouldn't imply that we all agree on the content 17:05:59 Manu: you want more than the "experimental" note on the wiki pages? 17:06:13 -ShaneM 17:06:14 ... "the existence of this page does not imply ..." 17:06:34 Mark: might be worth having a higher-level page that links to these 17:07:22 [adjourned] 17:07:28 -msporny 17:07:29 -markbirbeck 17:07:31 -Ben_Adida 17:07:32 -TomB 17:07:33 -Ralph 17:07:35 SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended 17:07:35 rrsagent, please draft minutes 17:07:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph 17:07:36 Attendees were msporny, ShaneM, Ralph, Ben_Adida, TomB, markbirbeck 17:07:48 rrsagent, please draft minutes 17:07:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph 17:07:54 zakim, bye 17:07:54 Zakim has left #rdfa 17:10:20 rrsagent, please draft minutes 17:10:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph 17:14:08 rrsagent, bye 17:14:08 I see no action items