Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2013-01-17
From RDFa Working Group Wiki
See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
14:08:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 14:08:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-rdfa-irc 14:08:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:08:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332 14:08:50 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 52 minutes 14:08:51 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference 14:08:51 <trackbot> Date: 17 January 2013 14:27:31 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rdfa 14:31:56 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdfa 14:58:05 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdfa 14:59:38 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 14:59:45 <Zakim> +??P29 14:59:51 <manu> zakim, I am ??P29 14:59:52 <Zakim> +manu; got it 15:00:52 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdfa 15:01:21 <Zakim> +??P36 15:01:27 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P36 15:01:28 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it 15:02:00 <manu> zakim, code? 15:02:00 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), manu 15:02:17 <Zakim> +scor 15:02:35 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa 15:03:03 <Zakim> +gkellogg 15:03:55 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa 15:05:30 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 15:05:31 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 15:05:31 <Zakim> +Ivan 15:06:17 <Zakim> +Shane_McCarron 15:06:18 <manu> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2013Jan/0048.html 15:06:25 <ShaneM> zakim, I am Shane_McCarron 15:06:25 <Zakim> ok, ShaneM, I now associate you with Shane_McCarron 15:06:57 <manu> Manu: Any updates or changes to the agenda? 15:07:07 <ivan> scribenick: ivan 15:09:29 <ivan> scribe: ivan 15:09:27 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-143: Prefixes too complicated 15:09:33 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/143 15:09:50 <ivan> manu: we have now asked for feedback from Tab twice 15:09:54 <ivan> … no responses 15:09:59 <ivan> … the WG has been pretty clear about it this over the past several years. 15:10:15 <ivan> … we are going to raise a warning whenever a prefix is overwritten 15:10:29 <ivan> … I think that is all we are going to do on this issue 15:10:31 <ShaneM> any prefix? 15:10:37 <ShaneM> or just an initial context prefix? 15:11:01 <ivan> ivan: any 15:11:03 <ShaneM> thanks 15:11:29 <ivan> manu: whenever you overwrite a prefix a warning is issued 15:11:44 <ivan> … I will add text when the issue is closed 15:12:23 <ivan> Manu: Since we have discussed this issue to death, and since no compelling evidence has been provided to remove the feature, and since all proposals for removing or modifying the feature would break documents in the past or make migrating to new prefixes impossible in the future, the WG has decided to close this issue with a minor modification to the way prefix-overriding is handled in RDFa processors. 15:12:58 <ivan> The WG is satisfied. 15:13:04 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-144: Add @itemref-like attribute 15:13:11 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/144 15:13:40 <ivan> manu: Gregg implemented the feature in the document. I changed some of the spec text, people did not like my changes, I reverted to Gregg's version. 15:14:12 <ivan> … when Gregg wrote the feature, there was an assumption of having an object with rdfa:Prototype 15:14:12 <ivan> … and then another part would have a rdfa:ref 15:14:21 <ivan> … it would then 'imports' all the statements of the prototype 15:14:39 <ivan> … there are some rules/pattern matching in the document to define it 15:14:59 <ivan> Manu: I removed the rdfa:Prototype type because I felt it was too meta, harder to understand than @itemref. 15:15:17 <ivan> … but as Niklas said it is actually good if people know that is meta 15:15:35 <ivan> … I also removed the use of bnodes in the examples 15:15:46 <ivan> … we did not need to do that to demonstrate the functionality. The examples now use fragment identifiers instead. 15:16:17 <ivan> Manu: we are reverting things that people had objections to 15:16:24 <ivan> … any other comments? 15:16:32 <ivan> gregg: we should decide the terms we use 15:16:43 <ivan> … rdfa:include or rdfa:ref ? 15:16:55 <ivan> manu: right now I feel that it is a fairly complex feature 15:17:11 <ivan> … the property copying and microdata side by side, the microdata version feels simpler 15:17:45 <ivan> niklasl: what is happening from and abstract point of view? 15:18:00 <ivan> … there is a product and a general part of the product 15:18:21 <ivan> gregg : rfda:ref is useful if one thinks of a prototype being pulled in 15:18:28 <ivan> … include is more what we are doing 15:18:47 <ivan> … but include has an include pattern in microformats, and what we do is very different 15:18:55 <scor> zakim, mute ivan 15:18:56 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 15:19:01 <ivan> … we do not inherit the the types from the calling point 15:19:16 <ivan> manu: I am not sure web developers would really see these different 15:19:23 <ivan> … so include might be o.k. as well 15:19:47 <ivan> … people might look at it with fresh eye 15:20:05 <ivan> gregg: include in, eg, microformats is done on a syntax level 15:20:17 <ivan> manu: clone, copy, import, pull … ? 15:20:48 <ivan> niklasl: I think it is better if it is declarative and not imperative 15:20:58 <ivan> gregg: we are on bike shedding… :-) 15:21:20 <ivan> niklas: are we waiting for feedback? Ie, we cannot be finalize it 15:22:20 <ivan> manu: are there any objection adding this feature? 15:22:49 <ivan> niklas: I am a bit hesitant, sure, it could go in 15:23:22 <ivan> zakim, unmute me 15:23:22 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted 15:24:31 <ivan> zakim, mute me 15:24:31 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 15:25:23 <manu> PROPOSAL: Add the Property Copying feature into the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification as an at-risk feature. 15:25:29 <ivan> ivan: +1 15:25:30 <gkellogg> +1 15:25:31 <manu> +1 15:25:35 <niklasl> +0.75 unless feedback is skeptical/negative (then it shouldn't fly) 15:25:38 <scor> +1 15:25:41 <ivan> q+ 15:25:48 <ivan> ack ivan 15:25:49 <manu> ack ivan 15:25:50 <manu> +1 15:27:33 <ShaneM> +1 15:27:25 <manu> RESOLVED: Add the Property Copying feature into the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification as an at-risk feature. 15:27:02 <gkellogg> ivan: consider rdfa:copy and rdfa:Pattern 15:27:04 <ivan> what about rdfa:pattern, rdfa:Pattern 15:27:42 <ivan> manu: after discussions rdfa:copy and rdfa:Pattern have it 15:27:43 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-145: @content override @value 15:27:53 <ivan> q+ 15:27:54 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/145 15:27:59 <manu> ack ivan 15:28:36 <gkellogg> q+ @datatype though 15:28:51 <manu> ivan: @value is not used in HTML5 in any meaningful way, the issue isn't @content overriding @value... it's whether to do @value processing at all. 15:28:57 <ivan> ivan: the issue if there is any value processing at all 15:28:58 <manu> ack 15:29:01 <manu> ack @dattype 15:29:12 <manu> ack @dattype, though 15:29:18 <manu> ack @datatype, though 15:29:26 <ivan> gregg: there is a parallel issue on whether @datatype takes precedence over @content 15:29:33 <ivan> gregg: wrong 15:29:40 <manu> q? 15:29:42 <manu> q- 15:29:42 <ivan> gregg: @content takes precedence over @datatype 15:29:51 <ivan> (all): yes 15:29:54 <manu> ack "@datatype, though" 15:30:39 <manu> PROPOSAL: Do not process the @value attribute in HTML+RDFa 1.1. 15:30:41 <manu> +1 15:30:41 <ivan> ivan: +1 15:30:46 <gkellogg> +1 15:30:51 <ShaneM> +1 15:30:59 <scor> +1 15:31:02 <niklasl> +0 I liked the effect of picking it up from <input> but I cannot argue for it with evidence of its need.... 15:31:08 <manu> RESOLVED: Do not process the @value attribute in HTML+RDFa 1.1. 15:31:42 <manu> PROPOSAL: @content overrides @datetime when found on the same element. 15:31:47 <ivan> ivan: +1 15:31:48 <ShaneM> +1 15:31:49 <manu> +1 15:31:54 <gkellogg> +1 15:31:59 <niklasl> +1 15:32:19 <scor> +1 15:32:20 <manu> RESOLVED: @content overrides @datetime when found on the same element. 15:32:40 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-146: HTML5+RDFa needs rule for implied @about="" on head/body 15:32:42 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/146 15:33:11 <ivan> manu: we had a discussion whether html+rdfa for a implied about on head/body 15:33:22 <ivan> … we resolved not to do that in rdfa 1.1 15:33:27 <manu> the discussion is here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/117 15:33:28 <ivan> zakim, mute me 15:33:28 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 15:33:34 <gkellogg> q+ 15:34:12 <ivan> Manu: the reason we impled @about was because the use case was a corner case 15:34:12 <ivan> … we were making the processing rules more complicated for a corner case use case 15:34:31 <ivan> … the root element has the url of the document as an @about for any xml element 15:34:39 <ivan> … we could then remove it from head and body 15:34:57 <niklasl> .. (or empty @resource (in Lite)) 15:34:58 <ivan> … caveat is that the @typeof alone would generate a bnode 15:35:02 <manu> ack gkellogg 15:35:09 <ivan> gregg: my memory is different 15:35:16 <ivan> .. we had a rule for 1.0 15:35:37 <ivan> … the problem was that if somebody set a different base, and this would be overritten by that 15:36:00 <ivan> … we therefore used the special rule referring the parent object for the resource 15:36:07 <ivan> … and what we decided to do 15:36:17 <ivan> … that is the language in xhtml+rdfa 1.1 15:36:21 <ivan> q+ 15:36:28 <ivan> ack @datatype 15:36:31 <ivan> ack though 15:37:05 <ivan> ShaneM: there is nothing in the general rule set 15:37:24 <ivan> gregg: the difference here was to use the parent object 15:37:34 <ivan> … that was what the group intended 15:37:42 <manu> ack ivan 15:37:43 <ivan> ack ivan 15:39:03 <ShaneM> q+ to disagree about process with regard to XHTML+RDFa 15:40:05 <ivan> ack ShaneM 15:40:13 <manu> ack Shane_McCarron 15:40:13 <Zakim> Shane_McCarron, you wanted to disagree about process with regard to XHTML+RDFa 15:41:40 <ivan> manu: it seems that the sentiment is to adopt the language from xhtml+rdfa 15:41:58 <tinkster> tinkster has joined #rdfa 15:44:29 <manu> PROPOSAL: Add text matching XHTML+RDFa 1.1 for special processing of HEAD and BODY into the HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec. 15:44:31 <ivan> ivan: +1 15:44:32 <manu> +1 15:44:34 <niklasl> +1 for consistency with XHTML 1.1 (I prefer just adding an explicit @resource along with the @typeof) 15:44:39 <gkellogg> +1 15:44:50 <scor> +1 15:45:02 <ShaneM> +1 15:45:05 <manu> RESOLVED: Add text matching XHTML+RDFa 1.1 for special processing of HEAD and BODY into the HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec. 15:45:50 <ivan> manu: we are hopefully done with all of the issues! 15:45:58 <ivan> … we can have a telcon next week 15:46:12 <ivan> ... any other issues we have to resolve before last call? 15:46:22 <ivan> No other issues. 15:47:37 <ivan> … I will prepare the HTML+RDFa 1.1 Last Call document this weekend, then. 15:47:49 <ivan> …. hopefully people can read it before next Thursday. 15:47:55 <ivan> … we will do a poll to take it to Last Call by email, over the mailing list. 15:48:46 <manu> Topic: PER for RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 15:49:17 <manu> shanem: Are there any PER dependencies for the HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec? 15:49:22 <manu> manu: No, I don't think so. 15:49:35 <manu> ivan: We should do the PERs later. 15:50:02 <manu> ivan: We should do the PRs and PERs together. 15:50:58 <Zakim> -Ivan 15:51:00 <Zakim> -gkellogg 15:51:00 <Zakim> -Shane_McCarron 15:51:02 <Zakim> -manu 15:51:04 <Zakim> -niklasl 15:51:09 <Zakim> -scor 15:51:10 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended 15:51:10 <Zakim> Attendees were manu, niklasl, scor, gkellogg, Ivan, Shane_McCarron 15:51:19 <niklasl> niklasl has left #rdfa 15:52:31 <manu> rrsagent, make logs public # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000212