Chatlog 2011-03-10

See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

14:46:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:46:17 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:46:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:46:19 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:46:21 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
14:46:21 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
14:46:22 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
14:46:22 <trackbot> Date: 10 March 2011
14:46:28 <manu> Chair: Manu
14:58:31 <Benjamin> Benjamin has joined #rdfa
14:59:32 <Steven> scribe: Steven
14:59:49 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
15:00:59 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
15:01:06 <Zakim> + +44.123.456.aaaa
15:01:08 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:11 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:12 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
15:01:13 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:01:15 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:01:17 <Zakim> +Steven
15:01:33 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate Steven
15:01:41 <Zakim> + +3539149aabb
15:01:59 <Knud> zakim, I am aabb
15:02:01 <Zakim> +??P17
15:02:05 <Zakim> +Knud; got it
15:02:14 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
15:02:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see +44.123.456.aaaa, Ivan, Steven, Knud, ??P17
15:02:17 <Benjamin> zakim, i am aaaa
15:02:19 <Zakim> +Benjamin; got it
15:02:50 <Steven> Agenda:
15:05:12 <manu> Topic: Updating RDFa Test Suites
15:05:19 <manu>
15:05:48 <Steven> Manu: I have made some updates for different host languages
15:06:08 <Steven> ...I need to add back the RDF 1.0 work
15:06:16 <Zakim> +??P31
15:06:17 <Steven> ... anyone can write and submit tests
15:06:26 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:06:31 <ivan> q+
15:06:35 <ShaneM> zakim, who is here?
15:06:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see Benjamin, Ivan, Steven, Knud, ??P17, ??P31
15:06:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see ShaneM, Knud, Benjamin, Zakim, RRSAgent, Steven, webr3, ivan, tinkster2, manu, manu1, trackbot
15:06:42 <manu>
15:06:47 <ShaneM> zakim, I am ??P31
15:06:47 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
15:07:08 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa
15:07:28 <manu> ack ivan
15:07:29 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:07:41 <Steven> Manu: Please add tests you come across when doing your implementations
15:07:59 <Steven> Ivan: I've had problems accessing the site
15:08:13 <Steven> Manu: You should have access
15:08:18 <Steven> Ivan: I will try again
15:08:39 <Steven> Manu: Ping me if you have problems
15:09:13 <Steven> Ivan: We should ensure we use the DTDs etc for the 1.1 tests
15:09:25 <ShaneM> Feel free to use the XML Schema for validation too.
15:09:27 <manu> Is this the DOCTYPE you're talking about: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+RDFa 1.1//EN" "">
15:09:45 <Steven> ... all the 1.0 tests are in XHTML
15:09:55 <Steven> ... do we need to repeat them in HTML5 and pure XML?
15:10:02 <Steven> Manu: Yes. We have an HTML5 test
15:10:10 <manu> HTML5 test suite uses: <!DOCTYPE html>
15:10:11 <Steven> s/test/testsuite/
15:10:57 <Steven> Ivan: It's nice to have SVG
15:11:16 <Steven> ... we now specify what it means to have a hostlanguage
15:11:28 <Steven> ... but we don't yet have an SVG hostlanguage
15:12:03 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss media types
15:12:06 <Steven> Manu: We use media type to identify the content types
15:12:17 <manu> ack shanem
15:12:17 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss media types
15:12:33 <Steven> Shane: XHTML5+RDFa?
15:12:42 <ivan> header 200 OK
15:12:43 <ivan> Date Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:12:24 GMT
15:12:43 <Steven> Manu: Yes...
15:12:43 <ivan> Server Apache/2.2.16 (Debian)
15:12:43 <ivan> Vary Accept-Encoding
15:12:43 <ivan> Content-Type text/html
15:12:50 <Steven> Shane: Media type?
15:13:05 <Steven> Steven: Same as XHTML1.1
15:13:32 <Steven> Ivan: I've just tried, and it doesn't seem to be working right
15:13:36 <Steven> Manu: I'll check
15:13:51 <ivan> alias header='curl --head '
15:14:01 <Steven> SHane: Your client has to say it accepts the media type in order to get it
15:14:22 <Steven> s/SH/Sh/
15:14:35 <Steven> Ivan: I don't think curl sends an accept header
15:14:55 <Steven> Manu: Oh, I don't change the content type. Bug. Will fix
15:15:56 <Steven> Shane: If XHTML5 uses the same media type as XHTML 1 (and it does) then we don't know what versio
15:16:12 <Steven> Steven: There is no difference in processing between XHTML5 and 1.1 surely
15:16:16 <Steven> Ivan: Right
15:16:21 <Steven> Shane: Not yet...
15:17:06 <Steven> Ivan: The two are esssentially the same from an RDFa POV
15:17:08 <Steven> Shane: OK
15:17:33 <Steven> Shane: Therefore we don't need a separate XHTML5+RDFa testsuite then
15:17:51 <Steven> Manu: I need to think about it more
15:18:27 <Steven> Manu: we could have a separate selector for XHTML5 though
15:19:11 <Steven> ... the DOCTYPE of the result would change
15:19:36 <Steven> ... the RDFa rules don't take the DOCTYPE into account though
15:19:37 <Steven> Subtopic: Guessing Content-Type and DOCTYPE/root element sniffing
15:21:03 <Steven> Shane: There was a thread in the last 5 days
15:21:35 <manu>
15:22:00 <Steven>
15:22:36 <Steven> Shane: He asked if it's OK to look at the root element
15:23:16 <Steven> ... to determine the document type
15:23:38 <Steven> ... but you don't get a media type in a filesystem, so how do you know?
15:24:02 <Steven> Ivan: FIlename extensions are used to map to media types
15:24:08 <ShaneM> Gregg said in his mail: "I guess what concerns me is the requirements of a conforming processor. This depends on the interpretation of the third sentence (If the RDFa Processor is unable ...). I would hope/expect that a processor which uses unspecified heuristics to determine the document type (e.g., file extension, root element name, etc.) would not be inconsistent with this definition. If this leaves room for other forms of identification, perhaps the spec shoul
15:24:09 <Steven> s/FI/Fi/
15:24:35 <Steven> Shane: It is not required though
15:24:44 <Steven> Ivan: It is the only way I can see it working
15:25:46 <Steven> Shane: Gregg wants to know if you are nonconforming if you sniff
15:26:13 <Steven> Manu: The decision to sniff happens after all other means have failed.
15:26:19 <Steven> ... we don't need to specify that
15:26:56 <Steven> ... do we think there are many people with this issue?
15:27:02 <Steven> ... I don't think so
15:27:48 <Steven> Shane: But, if you don't specify it, you won't get interoperability
15:27:58 <Steven> ... I agree we don't need to lock it down
15:28:30 <Steven> ... "We don't specify behaviour in the environment of incorrect input"
15:29:01 <Steven> Manu: I propose leaving it unspecified. Any objections?
15:29:33 <Steven> Shane: Do we say that in the spec?
15:29:39 <Steven> Manu: Probably
15:30:15 <ShaneM> I proposed: "If the media type is unavailable, a conforming RDFa Processor MAY look at the document's DOCTYPE to determine if its Formal Public Identifier matches that of a known Host Language."
15:30:28 <ShaneM> no reason to say this though
15:30:39 <Steven> Shane: Or use a note
15:31:24 <ShaneM> NOTE A conforming RDFa Processor MAY use additional mechanisms to attempt to determine the Host Language if the media type is unavailable.  These mechanisms are unspecified.
15:33:03 <ShaneM> NOTE A conforming RDFa Processor MAY use additional mechanisms (e.g., the DOCTYPE, a file extension, the root element) to attempt to determine the Host Language if the media type is unavailable.  These mechanisms are unspecified.
15:33:19 <Steven> Manu: I like that text
15:33:20 <manu> PROPOSAL: Add text to the RDFa Core document specifying a note that reads: NOTE: A conforming RDFa Processor MAY use additional mechanisms (e.g., the DOCTYPE, a file extension, the root element) to attempt to determine the Host Language if the media type is unavailable. These mechanisms are unspecified.
15:33:23 <Steven> Ivan: It's fine
15:33:37 <manu> +1
15:33:41 <Knud> +1
15:33:41 <Steven> ... I don't want to be obliged to do sniffing
15:33:45 <Steven> +1
15:33:47 <Benjamin> +1
15:34:00 <ShaneM> +1
15:34:02 <manu> RESOLVED: Add text to the RDFa Core document specifying a note that reads: NOTE: A conforming RDFa Processor MAY use additional mechanisms (e.g., the DOCTYPE, a file extension, the root element) to attempt to determine the Host Language if the media type is unavailable. These mechanisms are unspecified.
15:37:17 <manu>
15:38:18 <Steven> Manu: We are not going to review test cases; we'll hear about it from users if any are wrong
15:38:28 <Steven> ... OK with that?
15:38:41 <manu> Topic: RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 2nd Last Call
15:39:00 <Steven> ManU: I sent emails to all reviews of LC1
15:39:06 <Steven> s/U/u/
15:39:46 <Steven> ... we have done our duty
15:40:21 <Steven> Ivan: We don't need a reply; it would be good though
15:40:44 <Steven> Manu: Nathan has to reply to Ian Hickson
15:41:02 <Steven> ... I haven't seen that reply yet
15:41:17 <Steven> ... Issue-66
15:41:52 <manu> Nathan is supposed to respond to: and
15:42:07 <manu> Toby has to respond to:
15:42:21 <Steven> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:42:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Benjamin, Ivan, Steven, Knud, ??P17, ShaneM
15:42:49 <Steven> Manu: We need to do these
15:43:35 <Steven> ... let's delay for a week to let them do that
15:44:04 <Steven> Ivan: Maybe we should send replies
15:46:15 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
15:46:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see Benjamin, Ivan, Steven, Knud, ??P17, ShaneM
15:46:26 <manu> zakim, ??P17 is me
15:46:26 <Zakim> +manu; got it
15:46:38 <Steven> web3r++
15:46:48 <Steven> s/3r/r3/
15:47:17 <Steven> Manu: Delay a week?
15:47:20 <Steven> Ivan: No
15:47:46 <Steven> Steven: But that risks LC3
15:47:52 <Steven> Ivan: OK
15:49:43 <Steven> Manu: THe TAG says we should clarify that we cannot follow the specs to figure out what a fragid means when you use it in the way RDFa uses it
15:49:48 <Steven> s/TH/Th/
15:49:55 <manu> about="#me"
15:50:28 <Steven> Steven: I hate that. Foaf:PrimaryTopicOf is much better
15:51:01 <ShaneM> I note that the TAG's job is to be pedantic.
15:51:12 <Steven> Manu: The TAG says it is fine to use #me, but we need to say that you can't work out what it is
15:51:14 <manu> "In some of the examples below we have used URIs with fragment ids
15:51:15 <manu> that are local to the document containing the RDFa fragments shown
15:51:17 <manu> (e.g. 'about="#me"'). This idiom, which is also used in RDF/XML and
15:51:18 <manu> other RDF serializations, gives a simple way to 'mint' new URIs for
15:51:20 <manu> entities described by RDFa and therefore contributes considerably to
15:51:21 <manu> the expressive power of RDFa. However, the media type registrations
15:51:23 <manu> that govern the meaning of fragment identifiers (see section 3.5 of
15:51:23 <Steven> Shane: It is nonnormative.
15:51:24 <manu> the URI specification RFC 3986, RFC 3023, and RFC 2854) have not yet
15:51:26 <manu> caught up with this practice. Uses of fragment identifiers that are
15:51:27 <manu> arbitrarily different from the meaning they are assigned by the
15:51:29 <manu> relevant media type registrations (eg. via @id) should be avoided. See
15:51:30 <manu> also AWWW 3.2.1."
15:51:50 <Steven> Shane: The TAG should give us text iof they think it's so importnant
15:51:51 <manu> I think that change is fine
15:51:55 <Steven> s/nant/ant/
15:53:21 <Steven> s/iof/if/
15:55:19 <Steven> Shane: Is this about using #id when there is no such id?
15:55:39 <Steven> Manu: There is no spec that specifies the use of this use of fragids
15:55:55 <Steven> Ivan: We're wasting time on this
15:56:06 <Steven> Steven: It's our own fault for using it in our examples
15:57:51 <Steven> Manu: OK with the text I pasted?
15:57:57 <Steven> Shane: Up to the last sentence
15:58:06 <Steven> Manu: I will strike it
15:58:09 <ShaneM> Strike the last sentence and move on.
15:58:15 <Steven> +1
15:58:17 <manu> +1
15:59:09 <Steven> Steven: Next week's call is an hour earlier for Europeans
16:00:16 <Steven> Shane: New dated ED?
16:00:25 <Steven> Manu: Nah. Just make the changes
16:00:48 <Steven> ... ping Gregg
16:00:52 <Steven> Shane: Already done
16:00:55 <Steven> [ADJOURN]
16:00:56 <Zakim> -manu
16:00:57 <Zakim> -Knud
16:00:58 <Zakim> -ShaneM
16:00:58 <ivan> zakim, drop me
16:00:59 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
16:00:59 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:01:00 <Zakim> -Steven
16:01:09 <Zakim> -Benjamin
16:01:10 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
16:01:11 <Zakim> Attendees were +44.123.456.aaaa, Ivan, Steven, +3539149aabb, Knud, Benjamin, ShaneM, manu
16:01:14 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate Steven
Last modified on 10 March 2011, at 16:13