RDFa in XHTML Task Force

Action Items

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to generate spec text for pulling in external vocabulary documents. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to get in touch with LibXML developers about TC 142. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to aggressively push review of test cases via mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to try and find other interested parties in RDFa WG. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]

<scribe> -- continues

<scribe> ACTION: Mark to generate spec text for @token and @prefix [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Mark to generate spec text for pulling in external vocabulary documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]

Housekeeping items

Manu: Any updates?

Ivan: RDFa WG charter update
... W3M comments are coming in, they're being edited, only two issues that need changes.
... A11y want to be a part of RDFa - so they want to be mentioned in the charter
... I think it would be good to do that.
... There is a separate document called WebIDL - a formal way to describe APIs.
... We should put a sentence into the charter to use that formally, if possible.
... We shouldn't invent a new mechanism, we should use WebIDL.
... The Comm team said that it will go out to AC for formal vote next Monday.
... The deadline for review is on 22nd of Jan.
... If we don't get any substantial comments, then it should be possible to get the group up and running very quickly.
... W3M would approve if there are no substantial comments.

<markbirbeck> great developments, Ivan.

Manu: We should probably cancel Christmas and New Years Eve telecons

Ivan: +1

Manu: I won't be able to chair next week.

Briefly discuss HTML+RDFa heartbeat requirement

Manu: We need to publish HTML5+RDFa by Jan 15th
... I'm going to add Syntax Rules from an Infoset perspective.
... I'm also going to add coersion to Infoset addition that would ensure that infoset is the same between HTML5 and XHTML5 mode.

Ivan: There is another issue...
... What about getting specs out of sync?

Manu: We said we didn't want to do that.

Ivan: Will HTML5+RDFa be RDFa 1.0 or RDFa 1.1?
... We should decide at a later date and make sure we stay in sync with HTML WG.
... We will want to keep HTML5+RDFa and RDFa 1.1 in sync, if we can do that.

Mark: I think Ben had reservations about how much we put in.
... It's a bigger group than us that should decide what should go into that spec.

Ivan: Do the HTML5 people accept that HTML5 (non-XML) can be expressed as an Infoset as well.

Mark: I'm not sure we can say anything more than "be careful" - that the Infoset might not be what you're expecting.
... The DOM that is constructed from the source may be different in HTML5.
... There are precise rules about bits missing in an HTML5 document - there is an algorithm from going from HTML5 to XHTML5.
... I don't think that means that we should start writing the parsing algorithm from an Infoset perspective.

Ivan: We need to refer to the HTML5 description of what happens.

Manu: Well there are two things that we can be done - we say "In HTML5 mode, extract NS information like this, in XHTML5 mode, extract NS information like this."

"URIs everywhere" proposal

Manu: The proposal looks good.
... There doesn't seem to be any blocking issues - looks good to me.

Mark: Nothing seems to have come up as major issues, no.

Manu: There seem to be 3 successful implementations so far.

Ivan: Only thing I'm concerned about is that for certain attributes, we can have a URI or /something else/.
... Dan Connolly may be concerned about this - not sure what we should do with that...
... I don't think it's a technical issue.

Mark: I think Steven said that there was succinct guidance that an attribute shouldn't be able to contain both a URI and a QName.
... The argument was that you can't tell the difference between the two
... but we now know that we can tell the difference.
... We'd have to raise the issue and be ready to defend it.
... We should have a draft, Shane might be willing to generate that for us - put a box in that says we should discuss with the TAG.

<scribe> ACTION: Mark to ask Shane to generate URI Everywhere additions to XHTML+RDFa spec. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]

<markbirbeck> :)

<markbirbeck> I've emailed Shane...so at least that part of my action is done. :)