IRC log of rdfa on 2010-05-13
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:56:42 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
- 13:56:42 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/13-rdfa-irc
- 13:57:10 [manu]
- trackbot, setup meeting
- 13:57:10 [trackbot]
- Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, setup meeting'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
- 13:57:26 [manu]
- trackbot, prepare telecon
- 13:57:28 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 13:57:30 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be 7332
- 13:57:30 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
- 13:57:31 [trackbot]
- Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
- 13:57:31 [trackbot]
- Date: 13 May 2010
- 13:57:47 [manu]
- Chair: Manu Sporny
- 13:58:03 [tinkster1]
- tinkster1 has joined #rdfa
- 13:58:46 [manu]
- Present: Manu, Ivan, Toby, Shane
- 13:58:53 [manu]
- Regrets: Ben, Steven, Benjamin, Mark
- 13:59:54 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
- 14:00:01 [Zakim]
- + +1.734.995.aaaa
- 14:00:13 [manu]
- zakim, aaaa is manu
- 14:00:13 [Zakim]
- +manu; got it
- 14:00:15 [ivan]
- zakim, dial ivan-voip
- 14:00:15 [Zakim]
- ok, ivan; the call is being made
- 14:00:16 [Zakim]
- +Ivan
- 14:01:14 [Zakim]
- + +0785583aabb
- 14:01:24 [tinkster]
- zakim, aabb is me
- 14:01:24 [Zakim]
- +tinkster; got it
- 14:02:14 [Zakim]
- +ShaneM
- 14:02:18 [tinkster]
- zakim, mute me
- 14:02:18 [Zakim]
- tinkster should now be muted
- 14:02:27 [ivan]
- scribenick: ivan
- 14:04:25 [tinkster]
- zakim, unmute me
- 14:04:25 [Zakim]
- tinkster should no longer be muted
- 14:08:59 [ivan]
- Topic: possible new issues from mailing list
- 14:09:05 [ivan]
- manu: ivan contacted me off line
- 14:09:12 [ivan]
- ... two possible issues
- 14:09:16 [manu]
- - not-parsing if @profile cannot be accessed (Jeni's mail)
- 14:09:18 [manu]
- - do we need an error reporting mechanism in rdfa
- 14:09:45 [ivan]
- manu: anybody who thinks we should not turn these into issues?
- 14:09:58 [ivan]
- manu: any other issues that we missed?
- 14:10:22 [ivan]
- tinkster: not at the moment
- 14:10:31 [ivan]
- manu: we have to document all these well
- 14:10:46 [ivan]
- ... if anybody things of any other issues then send a mail to the mailing list
- 14:10:52 [ivan]
- ... i will add those two after the call
- 14:15:29 [ivan]
- topic: review rdfa dom api progress
- 14:15:44 [ivan]
- manu: mark sent a mail to the list that he does not have anything for us yet
- 14:16:03 [ivan]
- ... toby what are your thoughts on the progress?
- 14:16:11 [ivan]
- tinkster: i must admit I did not look at it last week...
- 14:16:17 [ivan]
- manu: nothing changed
- 14:16:33 [ivan]
- tinkster: it is fragmented between a triple space and a resource space apis
- 14:16:44 [ivan]
- ... would be good to have a combined version of those two
- 14:16:57 [ivan]
- manu: in an extended call last week this is the direction we have decided to go to
- 14:17:08 [ivan]
- ... my concern is that the document has not progressed in the past few weeks
- 14:17:22 [ivan]
- ... i will volunteer to integerate mark's changes into the dom api
- 14:17:29 [ivan]
- q+
- 14:17:34 [manu]
- ack ivan
- 14:17:37 [ivan]
- ivan: i agree,
- 14:17:53 [manu]
- Ivan: We have to move on - the writing needs to be in one document, they need to be merged
- 14:17:56 [Zakim]
- +[MIT528]
- 14:18:00 [manu]
- Ivan: This has been dragging on for way too long.
- 14:18:58 [dongmei]
- dongmei has joined #rdfa
- 14:19:12 [ivan]
- ShaneM: I am abstaining on that
- 14:19:25 [ivan]
- manu: meaning we should really move forwards?
- 14:20:35 [ivan]
- manu: I will go ahead
- 14:20:58 [ivan]
- tinkster: if you look at triples, the different views are not that disconnected
- 14:21:12 [ivan]
- manu: everyone agrees that this is a good thing to have
- 14:21:17 [ivan]
- ... i will start this
- 14:21:25 [ivan]
- topic: issue 22 discussions
- 14:21:49 [manu]
- http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/22
- 14:22:31 [ivan]
- manu: the problem is that in rdfa1.0 we say that prefixes are case sensitive
- 14:22:38 [ivan]
- ShaneM: we just defer to xmlns
- 14:22:44 [ivan]
- ... and xmlns is case sensitive
- 14:23:04 [ivan]
- manu: in rdfa1.1 i think what we want to say that prefixes must be converted to lowercase
- 14:23:09 [ivan]
- ShaneM: and it says that
- 14:23:19 [ivan]
- ... and we put it in the errate
- 14:23:23 [ivan]
- s/errate/errata/
- 14:23:36 [ivan]
- manu: previously we said use lower case
- 14:23:45 [ivan]
- ... now we say convert it
- 14:23:56 [ShaneM]
- Section 4.1. Document Conformance - In the future it is possible that RDFa will also be defined in the context of HTML. Consequently document authors SHOULD use lower-case prefix names in order to be compatible with current and potential future processors.
- 14:24:02 [ivan]
- q+
- 14:24:12 [manu]
- ack ivan
- 14:24:23 [manu]
- Ivan: We're still talking about prefixes and not terms, correct?
- 14:24:51 [manu]
- Ivan: Do we have a separate issue with terms?
- 14:24:56 [manu]
- Manu: I don't think this would apply to terms.
- 14:25:43 [ivan]
- ivan: what about HTML5?
- 14:26:24 [tinkster]
- in html5, rel and rev values are case-insensitive, unless they contain a colon.
- 14:26:44 [ivan]
- manu: why is that?
- 14:27:11 [ivan]
- manu: from what I remember, browsers preserve case for @rel and @rev
- 14:27:36 [ivan]
- ... we could say that terms that are not in the reserved list (license, etc) are case sensitive
- 14:28:20 [manu]
- trackbot, create issue Case-sensitive terms in HTML5
- 14:28:20 [trackbot]
- Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, create issue Case-sensitive terms in HTML5'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
- 14:28:41 [manu]
- trackbot, ISSUE: Case-sensitive terms in HTML5
- 14:28:41 [trackbot]
- Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, ISSUE: Case-sensitive terms in HTML5'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
- 14:28:51 [manu]
- ISSUE: Case-sensitive terms in HTML5
- 14:28:51 [trackbot]
- Created ISSUE-24 - Case-sensitive terms in HTML5 ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/24/edit .
- 14:29:18 [ivan]
- manu: for xmlns we should have case sensitivity
- 14:29:26 [ivan]
- ... as well as for @prefix
- 14:29:53 [manu]
- PROPOSAL: For prefixes defined via xmlns: and @prefix, the prefix text should be converted to lowercase by the RDFa Processor.
- 14:30:04 [ivan]
- +1
- 14:30:04 [manu]
- +1
- 14:30:06 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 14:30:08 [tinkster]
- +0
- 14:30:31 [ivan]
- RESOLVED: For prefixes defined via xmlns: and @prefix, the prefix text should be converted to lowercase by the RDFa Processor.
- 14:30:34 [ShaneM]
- Here is what the spec says now: Mappings are defined via @prefix. For backward compatibility, some Host Languages may also permit the definition of mappings via @xmlns. In this case, the value to be mapped is set by the XML namespace prefix, and the value to map is the value of the attribute — a URI. Regardless of how the mapping is declared, the value to be mapped must be converted to l
- 14:31:18 [ShaneM]
- lower case, and the URI is not processed in any way; in particular if it is a relative path it is not resolved against the current base. Authors should not use relative paths as the URI.
- 14:31:27 [ivan]
- manu: note on the vote that toby is concerned about backward compatibility issue
- 14:31:32 [manu]
- Toby: I'm concerned about the backwards incompatible change, but could go either way on it.
- 14:31:42 [ivan]
- topic: issue 19
- 14:31:59 [manu]
- http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/19
- 14:32:09 [ivan]
- manu: this is another backward incompatible changes
- 14:32:33 [ivan]
- ... by default rdfa1.0 generates xml literal if there is an element within the element being processed
- 14:33:02 [ivan]
- ... based on the markup that we have seen lots of people are generating xml literals when they intend plain literal
- 14:33:51 [ivan]
- tinkster: there are two related issues (1) do we want to generate xml literals by default (2) do we recursively go down
- 14:34:01 [ivan]
- manu: we have split those into two issues
- 14:34:10 [ivan]
- tinkster: i do not have any strong opinion,
- 14:34:18 [ivan]
- ... it is one thing we should consider
- 14:35:16 [manu]
- Ivan: This is the one thing that we listed in the charter, so there seems to be consensus that we wanted to address this.
- 14:35:41 [ivan]
- ShaneM: i do not have a problem with this, we should have fixed it in the errata
- 14:36:21 [ivan]
- manu: the general idea is that then people are adding datatypes they generally do not mark up markup
- 14:36:34 [ivan]
- .... i do not think the vast majority of people will try to expose markup on their pages
- 14:36:46 [ivan]
- ... and that is where people would use xml literal in their markup
- 14:36:56 [ivan]
- ... there is stuff like mathml
- 14:36:59 [ivan]
- ... or svg
- 14:37:03 [ivan]
- q+
- 14:37:13 [ivan]
- ... chemical compounds, etc
- 14:37:15 [manu]
- ack ivan
- 14:37:47 [manu]
- Ivan: Just to be fair - I see one area where people might want to do that, and that might be multi-lingual things.
- 14:37:57 [manu]
- Ivan: That being said, that's not a majority use case.
- 14:38:18 [manu]
- Manu: So, Ruby markup?
- 14:38:55 [manu]
- Manu: and what we're saying is you can still do that, but you have to do it explicitly datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral"
- 14:39:09 [manu]
- Toby: There are plenty of use cases, just not as common as Plain Literals.
- 14:39:15 [ivan]
- tinkster: there are use cases, but just not as common
- 14:40:05 [manu]
- PROPOSAL: By default RDFa 1.1 should generate Plain Literals even when there are elements in a subtree, unless datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral" is specified.
- 14:40:25 [manu]
- Toby: What about datatype="xml"
- 14:40:56 [ivan]
- +1
- 14:40:57 [manu]
- +1
- 14:41:01 [tinkster]
- +1
- 14:41:12 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 14:41:14 [ivan]
- RESOLVED: By default RDFa 1.1 should generate Plain Literals even when there are elements in a subtree, unless datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral" is specified.
- 14:41:20 [manu]
- RESOLVED: By default RDFa 1.1 should generate Plain Literals even when there are elements in a subtree, unless datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral" is specified.
- 14:41:26 [ivan]
- q+
- 14:41:34 [manu]
- ack ivan
- 14:41:52 [manu]
- Ivan: There is a more general thing that we started to discuss - do we have an open issue on default vocabularies and terms?
- 14:42:31 [manu]
- Manu: This one http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/11 ?
- 14:42:52 [manu]
- Ivan: Not the same issue - Should we have default terms in RDFa Core?
- 14:43:52 [manu]
- We also need to consider whether or not there would be default terms in RDFa Core. Things like datatype="xml" instead of needing to specify datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral".
- 14:44:10 [ivan]
- (added to issue 11)
- 14:44:14 [ivan]
- topic: issue 10
- 14:44:16 [manu]
- http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/10
- 14:44:31 [ivan]
- ShaneM: why is this an issue
- 14:44:42 [ivan]
- manu: it is in our queue
- 14:44:43 [ShaneM]
- This specification also adds the lang attribute to the I18N attribute collection as defined in [XHTML-MODULARIZATION11-2e]. The lang attribute is defined in [HTML401]. When this attribute and the xml:lang attribute are specified on the same element, the xml:lang attribute takes precedence. When both lang and xml:lang are specified on the same element, they should have the same value.
- 14:45:10 [ivan]
- ShaneM: this is already in xhtml+rdfa
- 14:45:21 [ivan]
- ... and we should be sure that this is the same as in html5
- 14:45:23 [ivan]
- q+
- 14:45:50 [manu]
- ack ivan
- 14:46:16 [ivan]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Feb/0092.html
- 14:46:58 [manu]
- http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-lang-and-xml:lang-attributes
- 14:48:47 [ivan]
- q+
- 14:49:02 [manu]
- Manu: I don't think the HTML5 spec says this... it says ignore xml:lang
- 14:50:47 [ivan]
- manu: the problem is when somebody uses both xml:lang and lang with different values, if run as xhtml and in html5 the generated triples will be different
- 14:50:54 [ivan]
- ... is this a problem?
- 14:51:03 [ivan]
- ... it is a corner corner case
- 14:51:24 [ivan]
- ... one way is to put a strong warning in the xhtml+rdfa text about the dangers
- 14:51:47 [ivan]
- ... ie, a proposed way forward is to defer to the language
- 14:51:56 [ivan]
- ... in xml and xhtml what counts is xml:lang
- 14:52:01 [ivan]
- ... in html5 it is lang
- 14:52:02 [ivan]
- q+
- 14:52:06 [manu]
- ack ivan
- 14:52:34 [ivan]
- ShaneM: we do not know what mode we are in
- 14:52:41 [ivan]
- manu: we have version
- 14:52:47 [ivan]
- ... but people do not want version
- 14:52:53 [ivan]
- ... it is a should
- 14:52:58 [ivan]
- q_
- 14:52:59 [ivan]
- q+
- 14:53:17 [manu]
- ack ivan
- 14:53:20 [ivan]
- ShaneM: in the absence of an announcement mechanism I would object
- 14:53:28 [tinkster]
- q+
- 14:55:00 [manu]
- Ivan: My parser figures out what mode to be in by looking at the document type - text/html means HTML5 mode
- 14:55:12 [manu]
- ack tinkster
- 14:55:14 [ShaneM]
- q+ to talk about media type
- 14:55:25 [ShaneM]
- q-
- 14:55:27 [ivan]
- tinkster: the annoucement mechanism might be media type
- 14:55:39 [ivan]
- ShaneM: not all processors have access to the document type
- 14:56:31 [ivan]
- tinkster: is there a way for javascript to find out the content type?
- 14:56:39 [ivan]
- ShaneM: not in a portable way:-9
- 14:56:46 [ivan]
- s/:-9/:-(/
- 14:57:43 [ivan]
- ShaneM: there is a hack, I create an element in the dom in lower case then I retrieve and if this is lower case
- 14:58:05 [ivan]
- ShaneM: i am not against the resolution, but we do have a problem
- 14:58:10 [ShaneM]
- How about requiring that the values are the same if both are specified?
- 14:58:12 [ivan]
- manu: this is really really a corner case
- 14:58:41 [tinkster]
- ShaneM, html5 already does.
- 14:58:51 [ivan]
- ... we can say that if you want portability, use both cases and really really not use different
- 14:59:32 [ivan]
- ShaneM: I have always said we do not define the processing rules for invalid content
- 14:59:46 [manu]
- PROPOSAL: RDFa 1.1 defers to the Host Language to determine the language of the node.
- 14:59:57 [tinkster]
- +1
- 14:59:58 [manu]
- +1
- 15:00:03 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:00:19 [manu]
- PROPOSAL: RDFa Core 1.1 defers to the Host Language to determine the language of the node.
- 15:00:22 [ivan]
- +1
- 15:00:22 [manu]
- +1
- 15:00:24 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:00:24 [tinkster]
- +1
- 15:00:36 [manu]
- RESOLVED: RDFa Core 1.1 defers to the Host Language to determine the language of the node.
- 15:01:16 [ShaneM]
- When both lang and xml:lang are specified on the same element, they MUST have the same value.
- 15:01:27 [manu]
- PROPOSAL: When both lang and xml:lang are specified on the same element, they MUST have the same value.
- 15:01:32 [manu]
- +1
- 15:01:34 [ivan]
- +1
- 15:01:40 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:01:46 [manu]
- Manu: That means that it is a validation error if they are not the same.
- 15:01:48 [tinkster]
- +0 : this should not be our responsibility
- 15:04:21 [ivan]
- RESOLVED: When both lang and xml:lang are specified on the same element, they MUST have the same value
- 15:04:47 [Zakim]
- -ShaneM
- 15:04:52 [Zakim]
- -tinkster
- 15:04:54 [ivan]
- zakim, drop me
- 15:04:54 [Zakim]
- Ivan is being disconnected
- 15:04:54 [Zakim]
- -Ivan
- 15:04:56 [Zakim]
- -[MIT528]
- 15:04:56 [Zakim]
- -manu
- 15:04:56 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
- 15:04:59 [Zakim]
- Attendees were +1.734.995.aaaa, manu, Ivan, +0785583aabb, tinkster, ShaneM, [MIT528]
- 15:31:42 [manu]
- zakim, bye
- 15:31:42 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #rdfa
- 15:31:44 [manu]
- rrsagent, bye
- 15:31:44 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items