13:59:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:59:13 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/30-rdfa-irc
13:59:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:59:15 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:59:17 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:59:17 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
13:59:18 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
13:59:18 <trackbot> Date: 30 May 2013
14:00:46 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:00:53 <Zakim> +??P9
14:00:56 <manu> zakim, I am ??P9
14:00:56 <Zakim> +manu; got it
14:01:12 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:01:12 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:01:13 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:01:14 <manu> zakim, code?
14:01:14 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), manu
14:02:02 <Zakim> +gkellogg
14:02:10 <Zakim> -Ivan
14:02:14 <ivan> zakim, drop me
14:02:14 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'ivan'
14:02:17 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:02:17 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:02:18 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:02:38 <ivan> sh....t
14:02:52 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:03:04 <Zakim> -Ivan
14:05:18 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:05:18 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:05:19 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:05:36 <ivan> ???
14:07:56 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
14:08:00 <manu> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2013May/0047.html
14:08:00 <gkellogg> scribe: gkellogg
14:08:31 <Zakim> +McCarron
14:08:38 <ShaneM> zakim, I am McCarron
14:08:38 <Zakim> ok, ShaneM, I now associate you with McCarron
14:09:02 <manu> Topic: Editorial Changes
14:09:29 <manu> RDFa Core 1.1
14:09:52 <manu> RDFa Core is at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2013/PER-rdfa-core-20130625/
14:09:54 <manu> XHTML+RDFa is at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2013/PER-xhtml-rdfa-20130625/
14:10:16 <gkellogg> manu: we've asked stephane schumacher and alex milouski for updates to the spec.
14:10:33 <gkellogg> … Each has commented on the mailing list; shanem responded to all comments, and they are happy.
14:10:49 <gkellogg> … There's one thing outstanding from peter occil.
14:11:03 <manu> Peter's comment is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2013Apr/0015.html
14:11:47 <manu> Peter says that step 11 should change
14:11:51 <manu> in RDFa Core
14:11:59 <manu> specifically "the rule for language tags should apply no matter which part of the step caused the literal value to be interpreted as a plain literal, rather than just to the last part"
14:12:09 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdfa
14:12:31 <manu> gkellogg: Yes, he's correct - I thought we had fixed it.
14:12:33 <Zakim> +??P32
14:12:40 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P32
14:12:40 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
14:12:54 <manu> gkellogg: I think there was something included in a bullet that was following the last bullet.
14:13:08 <manu> Ivan: No, that's different. I have made that change. I'll come back to that later.
14:13:08 <gkellogg> ivan: I made some review this morning; I'll come back to it.
14:13:29 <gkellogg> … I think the issue is purely editorial.
14:14:14 <gkellogg> … Text already says if it is a plain literal, apply the language of the node.
14:14:39 <gkellogg> … I think the indentation level is wrong.
14:15:03 <gkellogg> manu: that was the only comment I thought we had missed.
14:15:47 <gkellogg> shanem: Ivan sent two comments that I agree with, and will integrate.
14:16:01 <gkellogg> ivan: there are a couple of more serious comments, and a markup error.
14:16:25 <gkellogg> … In other standards, when we make an edited recommendation, we add 2nd edition.
14:16:29 <gkellogg> shanem: already done.
14:17:25 <gkellogg> ivan: Regarding using HTTP language, it's more complicated.
14:17:58 <gkellogg> … HTML5+RDFa document 3.3 refers to HTML5 to determine the language of a node.
14:18:27 <gkellogg> … This section in HTML5 explicitly refers to using the HTTP language mechanism too.
14:18:48 <gkellogg> … If we follow the letter of this, an HTML5+RDFa document must also use this mechanism.
14:19:09 <gkellogg> … My answer was that we can't do it, we can only use markup; however, our document should make that clear, it doesn't say that.
14:19:23 <gkellogg> … It doesn't change any implementations.
14:19:48 <gkellogg> manu: we should make it clear in HTML5+RDFa spec that while it says you can get language from the header, in many cases it's impossible to do.
14:20:01 <gkellogg> scor: can we do this in HTML5 DOM?
14:20:13 <gkellogg> ivan: Peter claims that even DOM doesn't do that.
14:20:40 <gkellogg> … We should say it works like HTML5 documentation, except language information from a higher level protocol, such as HTTP, is not taken into account.
14:21:03 <gkellogg> manu: I'll ping Hixie to see why that language is in there in the first place.
14:22:01 <gkellogg> ivan: even if the DOM does something, can we handle it?
14:22:15 <gkellogg> … What would the DOM do?
14:22:28 <gkellogg> s/scor/niklasl/
14:23:21 <gkellogg> manu: I made a pass through the last couple of months of comments, and I think we've handled everything.
14:23:47 <gkellogg> topic: RDFa Primer
14:24:11 <gkellogg> ivan: it's ready to go, but it's a node, so I'm note sure we want to publish it together with the PERs.
14:24:33 <gkellogg> … It doesn't have to go through director's call. I haven't generated HTML, but the ReSpec is final.
14:25:05 <gkellogg> topic: HTML+RDFa spec
14:25:09 <manu> Topic: HTML+RDFa 1.1 (Manu)
14:25:15 <gkellogg> manu: I think it's ready to go mod two issues.
14:25:25 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2013/PR-html-rdfa-20130625/
14:25:45 <gkellogg> … First is Alex Milowski's issue.
14:25:50 <manu> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2013May/0051.html
14:26:17 <gkellogg> … He sent in some editorial comments, and pointed out that we might have some unnecessary text in HTML+RDFa, specifically step 8.
14:26:36 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2013/PR-html-rdfa-20130625/#additional-rdfa-processing-rules
14:26:48 <manu> "In Section 7.5, processing step 5, and processing step 6, if no IRI is provided by a resource attribute (e.g., @about, @href, @resource, or @src), then first check to see if the element is the head or body element. If it is, then set new subject to parent object."
14:27:10 <ivan> -> RDFa 1.1 Primer new version: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-primer/Overview-src.html
14:27:25 <gkellogg> … It seems redundant in step 6, which sets new subject to parent object.
14:28:06 <manu> gkellogg: This is necessary - if you use @typeof on HEAD or BODY, you don't want it to be a bnode.
14:28:21 <manu> gkellogg: Otherwise, you'd need an explicit resource... so this step 8 is necessary.
14:28:43 <gkellogg> manu: question is, when is the rule applied.
14:29:00 <gkellogg> … Do you run rule first, and then the rest of the processing steps.
14:29:53 <gkellogg> manu: everyone's gotten it right, but that's probably because of the test suite, not the spec.
14:30:13 <gkellogg> … I think we could be clearer. We could say that the rule should be run at the beginning of rules 5 and 6
14:30:48 <gkellogg> ivan: I'm scared of touching the text.
14:30:51 <ShaneM> I don't want to touch it.
14:31:42 <gkellogg> ivan: how do implementations handle this.
14:32:11 <gkellogg> manu: I think all implementors know what the effect should be. I don't think it will be difficult to bring implementations in line.
14:33:03 <manu> gkellogg: I look for @about first, and if there is none, I use the parent object....
14:33:16 <gkellogg> manu: I'm fine with leaving text as is.
14:33:41 <manu> gkellogg: I think there is too much risk of doing a last minute change and introducing a bug.
14:33:55 <gkellogg> manu: no change, then.
14:34:23 <gkellogg> manu: The other issue was ivan's concern.
14:34:24 <niklasl> q+
14:35:03 <gkellogg> ivan: You refer to RDF Concepts using [[RDF-CONCEPTS]] rather than [[RDF11-CONCEPTS]], to make things clear.
14:35:27 <gkellogg> … Also, you forgot to take out that property copying is a feature at risk.
14:36:04 <gkellogg> … No, it's out, but not listed as one of the changes in the status section.
14:36:13 <manu> ack niklasl
14:36:19 <gkellogg> … Making clear that it was at risk and is now accepted.
14:36:36 <gkellogg> niklasl: There is a google example that might be an issue, relating to HTML5.
14:36:51 <niklasl> .. https://developers.google.com/gmail/schemas/embedding-schemas-in-emails
14:37:08 <gkellogg> … It's the example of microdata in embedding schemas.
14:37:20 <gkellogg> … In this they use span in head.
14:37:51 <gkellogg> … It does not validate, but when I change it to RDFa, it validates even worse.
14:38:28 <gkellogg> … I was wondering if there was change that allowed span in head if used with microdata attributes.
14:38:46 <gkellogg> ivan: I think that's invalid.
14:39:05 <scor> afaik it is not valid
14:39:07 <gkellogg> niklasl: I wondered if it might be a change in HTML5.
14:39:49 <gkellogg> ivan: it also adds a time element in the head, which is also not allowed.
14:40:11 <gkellogg> niklasl: I just wanted to mention this, just to make sure they haven't tailored things to microdata.
14:41:17 <gkellogg> manu: We'll ping WHATWG to see if that's valid markup, or they intend it to be valid.
14:41:35 <gkellogg> … If it is, we may need to add matching markup to HTML+RDFa.
14:42:03 <gkellogg> niklasl: The only thing was the validator. When I changed it to RDFa, it complained that @property is not allowed.
14:43:23 <manu> ACTION: Manu to ask WHATWG about language being inserted into the DOM from an HTTP Header.
14:43:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-122 - Ask WHATWG about language being inserted into the DOM from an HTTP Header. [on Manu Sporny - due 2013-06-06].
14:43:45 <manu> ACTION: Manu to ask WHATWG about the Schemas in Gmail example where they place SPAN/TIME in HEAD.
14:43:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-123 - Ask WHATWG about the Schemas in Gmail example where they place SPAN/TIME in HEAD. [on Manu Sporny - due 2013-06-06].
14:44:21 <gkellogg> manu: any concern about specs going to PR?
14:44:31 <gkellogg> ivan: better to make this a resolution.
14:45:18 <manu> PROPOSAL: RDFa Core 1.1, XHTML+RDFa 1.1, RDFa Primer 1.1, and HTML+RDFa 1.1 are complete, all comments have been addressed, and each document is ready to go to the next stage in the publication process.
14:45:19 <manu> +1
14:45:20 <niklasl> +1
14:45:23 <ivan> +1
14:45:24 <gkellogg> +1
14:45:38 <ShaneM> +1
14:46:35 <manu> RESOLVED: RDFa Core 1.1, XHTML+RDFa 1.1, RDFa Primer 1.1, and HTML+RDFa 1.1 are complete, all comments have been addressed, and each document is ready to go to the next stage in the publication process.
14:46:50 <manu> Topic: Test Suite Changes
14:47:01 <manu> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2013May/0038.html
14:48:28 <manu> gkellogg: These changes were cases where xml:base was not being handled properly - impossible to do for a DOM implementation, so the proposal and change was to remove that test from XHTML1.
14:49:05 <manu> https://github.com/rdfa/rdfa-website/commit/85ba26a4fa310ab93a40a55efa4d54e70b22135b
14:49:10 <manu> https://github.com/rdfa/rdfa-website/commit/b10884ec47ade8c38d798443b0606b3e4806e63c
14:50:11 <manu> gkellogg: The first one was a bug in HTML4 version - we weren't reporting on HTML4, but Alex did anyway. It seems quite redundant, but it's the only thing that HTML+RDFa 1.1 refers to that's already a REC. HTML4 should be using HTML+RDFa 1.1.
14:50:37 <manu> gkellogg: The second change combined several different things together... see the comments here: https://github.com/rdfa/rdfa-website/commit/b10884ec47ade8c38d798443b0606b3e4806e63c
14:51:17 <manu> gkellogg: The HTML specification requires that if they both exist, they're the same... so we shouldn't be testing violations of the spec, by removing it, we get rid of the issue. It's still used on the XHTML variations.
14:51:28 <manu> gkellogg: I think that's pretty much it.
14:52:17 <manu> gkellogg: Remove xhtml1 from test 0109, which is defined for xhtml1, html4, and html5 for both RDFa 1.0 and 1.1.
14:52:35 <manu> gkellogg: Remove test from XML1 since it can't be done... its' not valid for HTML4 and HTML5 either - XHTML attribute.
14:53:39 <gkellogg> close ACTION-120
14:53:39 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-120 Ping Alex Milowski about doing another EARL report..
14:53:45 <gkellogg> close ACTION-121
14:53:45 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-121 Update EARL reports at the end of March 2013..
14:53:51 <manu> Topic: Timeline
14:53:52 <Zakim> -McCarron
14:54:21 <gkellogg> manu: We said we're ready to go to the next stage and request a transition call.
14:54:39 <gkellogg> ivan: I'd rather have a resolution for the transition,a s we're jumping over CR.
14:56:00 <manu> PROPOSAL: Publish the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification as a Proposed Recommendation, skipping the Candidate Recommendation phase due to multiple interoperable implementations, targetting a publication date of June 25th 2013.
14:56:11 <ivan> +1
14:56:12 <manu> +1
14:56:21 <gkellogg> +1
14:56:25 <niklasl> +1
14:56:29 <manu> RESOLVED: Publish the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification as a Proposed Recommendation, skipping the Candidate Recommendation phase due to multiple interoperable implementations, targetting a publication date of June 25th 2013.
14:57:12 <manu> RESOLVED: Publish the RDfa Core 1.1, XHTML+RDFa 1.1 documents as Proposed Edited Recommendations with a publication date of June 25th 2013.
14:57:21 <manu> PROPOSED: Publish the RDfa Core 1.1, XHTML+RDFa 1.1 documents as Proposed Edited Recommendations with a publication date of June 25th 2013.
14:57:25 <ivan> +1
14:57:25 <niklasl> +1
14:57:26 <manu> +1
14:57:28 <gkellogg> +1
14:57:32 <manu> RESOLVED: Publish the RDfa Core 1.1, XHTML+RDFa 1.1 documents as Proposed Edited Recommendations with a publication date of June 25th 2013.
14:59:33 <gkellogg> ivan: previous resolution is fine for notes.
15:00:06 <gkellogg> http://rdfa.info/earl-reports/earl.html
15:06:14 <gkellogg> ivan: only week we can do the transition meeting is the week of June 17th.
15:06:42 <gkellogg> … You send out the request to the chairs next week, then I will start a doodle to set a time for the week of the 17th.
15:07:30 <gkellogg> ivan: we should call out the approach we want to use for references.
15:08:06 <gkellogg> manu: we have a GSoC intern assigned, so we'll meet with him soon.
15:08:32 <gkellogg> niklasl: In our library work, we're using RDFa to create index card pages for historical data.
15:08:41 <gkellogg> … This came from other's in the conference.
15:09:11 <gkellogg> manu: also, activity streams looks like it may use RDFa.
15:09:19 <Zakim> -manu
15:09:21 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:09:21 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:09:22 <Zakim> -niklasl
15:09:22 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:09:22 <Zakim> Attendees were manu, Ivan, gkellogg, McCarron, niklasl
15:09:41 <niklasl> niklasl has left #rdfa
15:09:51 <manu> gkellogg: I'll take care of publishing the minutes.
16:56:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa
18:23:49 <rdfa> rdfa has joined #rdfa
18:23:49 <rdfa> 01[13rdfa-website01] 15gkellogg pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/rdfa/rdfa-website/commit/05afbdca9fed915cc9f22a0a64e71d93ca7849b5
18:23:49 <rdfa> 13rdfa-website/06master 1405afbdc 15Gregg Kellogg: Update EARL reports, creating earl-full.{html,jsonld,ttl} and index.html to report on all versions, and earl.{html,jsonld,ttl} and rdfa-earl-2013-05-29.html for the transition meeting with status of IR. Also, saved original RDFa 1.1 submission as rdfa-earl-2012-05-17.html.
18:23:49 <rdfa> rdfa has left #rdfa
18:27:31 <manu> brilliant - thanks gkellogg
18:27:34 <manu> ! :)