RDFa in XHTML Task Force

Action Items

benadida: We were going to talk to HTML WG chairs, but they're meeting later this week to figure out what the process is going to be.
... Given that Manu's draft is doing well, maybe the process is fine.
... We still need to understand what the process is going to be.
... When everybody is cooperating, everything is good. The second there is disagreement, process issues could be raised.
... Manu, you had said we should invite HTML WG participants?

Manu: Yes, that would be good, after we meet with HTML WG chairs.

benadida: Ok.

<scribe> ACTION: Ben to enter all recent RDFa issues into the tracker. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action04] [DONE]

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to author 3 HTML5 drafts + separate Microdata draft. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]

Manu: There are 4 documents
... RDFa (standalone)

http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/rdfa.html

Manu: Microdata (standalone)

http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/microdata.html

Manu: HTML5 (no semantics)

http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-nosemantics.html

Manu: HTML5 (includes Microdata and RDFa by reference)

http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-sembyref.html

benadida: It would be good to review RDFa one first

<scribe> ACTION: Ben to create RDFa WG charter template. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUES]

ShaneM: That is urgent, we should start ASAP.

benadida: Ok, will up the priority on WG charter.

<scribe> ACTION: Shane to produce proposed diff re: XMLLiteral change [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-rdfa-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]

ShaneM: XMLLiteral has come up again
... XMLLiteral is always rooted in our case.

Manu: Right.

Steven: Even though the root isn't included in the XMLLiteral, we can act as if it is still there.

<ShaneM> From the spec: The value of the [XML literal] is a string created by serializing to text, all nodes that are descendants of the [current element], i.e., not including the element itself, and giving it a datatype of rdf:XMLLiteral.

Manu: We should look at the spec about default xmlns preservation.
... I don't think we have a test case for it.

ShaneM: One of the tests let's you do preservation or no preservation.

<ShaneM> I think the magic wording here is "serializing to text" which is handwaving and we need to point to a real method for creating a canonical serialization

RDFa in HTML5 draft update & feedback

Manu: pushed standalone RDFa for HTML5 spec to HTML WG earlier this week
... most of the responses are fairly positive. Mostly requests for clarifications.
... more substantive issues: DOM layering and use of xmlns
... more philosophical than technical.
... claim is that we're violating the W3C's layering spec

<ShaneM> I just sent a response on that thread

Manu: need to use two different mechanisms for finding xmlns.

Shane: our spec says nothing of the sort. Implementation strategies have had to deal with the dichotomy, but the spec declares a single mechanism.
... the implementation needs to deal with a complication because of the DOM.
... they want us to lock down how the DOM works, and that's not our job.

Manu: goes with the HTML5 way of thinking about these specs.
... they want us to tell them exactly how to implement it.

Shane: it's a burden on the implementor, "you're right."

benadida: We need to focus on xmlns: in non-xml mode HTML -- the spec is fairly straightforward to implement.

ShaneM: If you need to deal with different sources of input, your implementation needs to try different mechanisms.

benadida: Especially if it isn't announced in a way that is consistent.

Manu: THere is also the DOM Consistency principle.

ShaneM: There are two namespace declarations that are reserved in XHTML5
... SVG and MathML
... How do you achieve DOM consistency with those? How are SVG and MathML expressed in non-xml mode HTML5?

benadida: Yes, that's an important question to ask.

ShaneM: I'll bring it up.

Manu: All the other issues are addressable via spec language.

benadida: The HTML5 spec that Manu has written that has no semantics, or semantics by reference... is going to be published along side Ian's spec... is that normal?

Steven: That's not normal for W3C process.

ShaneM: We should publish and show that there is a way forward for spec modularization in HTML5.
... It could create a branding issue for W3C.

RDFa Issues

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/products/2

<benadida> issues --> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/products/2

benadida: not much to say other than they're there.

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/228

Steven: Yes, I fixed that issue
... I was concerned that there were two different decisions on itsRules.
... one that Shane proposed, and one that HTML5 proposed.

ShaneM: It should be the same as HTML5.

benadida: Let's try to knock these issues out over e-mail.
... Most of them are small... some of them are bigger issues.

<benadida> ACTION: Ben to transfer wiki issues to tracker [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]

Manu: There is some info on the rdfa wiki
... Search for "html issues"

@profile discussion

benadida: We're trying to find an easy way of including vocabularies and letting the author use very simple syntax (like Microformats)
... I think we agree that both solutions could exist and be orthogonal
... not clear if that is a desirable outcome.

<benadida> Manu: leaning towards Mark's solution

benadida: We've got two proposals.
... One that effectively sets the default prefix (my proposal)
... One that requires fetching the document at parse-time via specifying multiple profiles (Mark's proposal)

benadida: There is no way to solve the problem we're trying to solve without indirection
... Some indirection has to be provided.
... That indirection is a problem for Javascript parsers.
... I feel like we might be re-inventing the wheel.

ShaneM: The syntax should be RDFa at the end of the profile.

<ShaneM> FYI I completed my action item