14:56:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-rdfa-irc ←
14:56:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:56:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
14:56:51 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes ←
14:56:51 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
14:56:52 <trackbot> Date: 17 February 2011
14:57:17 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Feb/0136.html
14:57:35 <manu1> Chair: Manu
14:59:08 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
14:59:15 <Zakim> +ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM ←
14:59:45 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
14:59:53 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P3
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P3 ←
14:59:54 <Zakim> sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??P3'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??P3' ←
14:59:55 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P2
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P2 ←
14:59:55 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
15:00:07 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
15:00:07 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
15:00:09 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
15:01:20 <manu1> scribenick: tinkster
(Scribe set to Toby Inkster)
15:01:46 <Zakim> + +47.85.583.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +47.85.583.aaaa ←
15:01:52 <tinkster1> Zakim, aaaa is me
Zakim, aaaa is me ←
15:01:52 <Zakim> +tinkster1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +tinkster1; got it ←
15:01:57 <tinkster1> Zakim, mute me
Zakim, mute me ←
15:01:57 <Zakim> tinkster1 should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: tinkster1 should now be muted ←
15:02:12 <Zakim> +Knud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Knud ←
15:02:26 <Zakim> + +49.631.205.75.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +49.631.205.75.aabb ←
15:02:44 <tinkster> Zakim, unmute me
Zakim, unmute me ←
15:02:44 <Zakim> tinkster1 should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: tinkster1 should no longer be muted ←
15:02:47 <Benjamin> zakim, aabb is me
Benjamin Adrian: zakim, aabb is me ←
15:02:47 <Zakim> +Benjamin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Benjamin; got it ←
15:02:49 <tinkster> Zakim, mute me
Zakim, mute me ←
15:02:49 <Zakim> tinkster1 should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: tinkster1 should now be muted ←
15:04:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:04:27 <webr3> Zakim, i am IPcaller
Nathan Rixham: Zakim, i am IPcaller ←
15:04:27 <Zakim> ok, webr3, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, webr3, I now associate you with [IPcaller] ←
15:04:45 <Steven_> zakim, dial steven-617
Steven Pemberton: zakim, dial steven-617 ←
15:04:45 <Zakim> ok, Steven_; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven_; the call is being made ←
15:04:46 <Zakim> +Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven ←
15:04:51 <webr3> zakim, who is here
Nathan Rixham: zakim, who is here ←
15:04:51 <Zakim> webr3, you need to end that query with '?'
Zakim IRC Bot: webr3, you need to end that query with '?' ←
15:04:54 <webr3> zakim, who is here?
Nathan Rixham: zakim, who is here? ←
15:04:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, manu1, Ivan, tinkster1 (muted), Knud, Benjamin, [IPcaller], Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ShaneM, manu1, Ivan, tinkster1 (muted), Knud, Benjamin, [IPcaller], Steven ←
15:04:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see Steven_, Knud, Steven, RRSAgent, Benjamin, ShaneM, ivan, webr3, manu1, tinkster, manu, Zakim, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Steven_, Knud, Steven, RRSAgent, Benjamin, ShaneM, ivan, webr3, manu1, tinkster, manu, Zakim, trackbot ←
15:06:08 <manu1> Topic: Default Profile URLs
15:06:46 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/profile/SDFGHJ
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/profile/SDFGHJ ←
15:07:18 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1 ←
15:07:35 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/profile/xhml-rdfa-1.1
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/profile/xhml-rdfa-1.1 ←
15:07:54 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1 ←
15:08:20 <tinkster> Ivan: W3C will hopefully allow us to use profile URIs like the ones I'm posting.
Ivan Herman: W3C will hopefully allow us to use profile URIs like the ones I'm posting. ←
15:08:30 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The two default profile URLs should be http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1 and http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1
PROPOSED: The two default profile URLs should be http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1 and http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1 ←
15:08:39 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:08:40 <webr3> +1
Nathan Rixham: +1 ←
15:08:41 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:08:41 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
15:08:42 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
15:08:45 <tinkster> +1
+1 ←
15:08:58 <Steven_> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
15:09:01 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:09:04 <manu1> RESOLVED: The two default profile URLs should be http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1 and http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1
RESOLVED: The two default profile URLs should be http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1 and http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1 ←
15:09:24 <manu1> ACTION: Ivan to setup the default RDFa profile URLs with the systems team
ACTION: Ivan to setup the default RDFa profile URLs with the systems team ←
15:09:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-67 - Setup the default RDFa profile URLs with the systems team [on Ivan Herman - due 2011-02-24].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-67 - Setup the default RDFa profile URLs with the systems team [on Ivan Herman - due 2011-02-24]. ←
15:09:30 <Zakim> -Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven ←
15:09:42 <Steven_> zakim, dial steven-617
Steven Pemberton: zakim, dial steven-617 ←
15:09:42 <Zakim> ok, Steven_; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven_; the call is being made ←
15:09:43 <Zakim> +Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven ←
15:09:57 <tinkster> Steven_: do we need the "1.1" in the URI?
Steven Pemberton: do we need the "1.1" in the URI? ←
15:12:15 <tinkster> manu: we need a version number in case we want to remove terms/prefixes in future versions.
Manu Sporny: we need a version number in case we want to remove terms/prefixes in future versions. ←
15:13:27 <tinkster> ... and creating an "rdfa-latest" profile would create incompatibilities in documents when it changes.
... and creating an "rdfa-latest" profile would create incompatibilities in documents when it changes. ←
15:14:19 <tinkster> Ivan: for most people, who will not express the profile explicitly, this breakage will happen anyway as parsers will start using a new profile by default.
Ivan Herman: for most people, who will not express the profile explicitly, this breakage will happen anyway as parsers will start using a new profile by default. ←
15:15:10 <tinkster> Steven: just wanted to make sure this had been thought through.
Steven Pemberton: just wanted to make sure this had been thought through. ←
15:15:21 <tinkster> manu: (chair hat off) I want the version number in there because not having it in there opens us up to a number of issues that we've discussed before as being very bad (never being able to remove prefixes or terms, never being able to change semantics for RDFa 2.0+, etc). Any objections if we keep it the same?
Manu Sporny: (chair hat off) I want the version number in there because not having it in there opens us up to a number of issues that we've discussed before as being very bad (never being able to remove prefixes or terms, never being able to change semantics for RDFa 2.0+, etc). Any objections if we keep it the same? ←
15:15:21 <tinkster> No objections...
No objections... ←
15:15:22 <manu1> Topic: Hypertext Coordination Group Participation
15:16:37 <tinkster> manu: we'd like to participate in the co-ordination group.
Manu Sporny: we'd like to participate in the co-ordination group. ←
15:17:59 <tinkster> (people discuss Peter Mika's RDFa usage data)
(people discuss Peter Mika's RDFa usage data) ←
15:18:32 <tinkster> manu: huge sample size; lots of non-trivial uses of RDFa.
Manu Sporny: huge sample size; lots of non-trivial uses of RDFa. ←
15:18:58 <tinkster> ... at least 430,000,000 pages our of 12B using RDFa, all of which express non-trivial semantic objects, use xmlns: - strong uptake.
... at least 430,000,000 pages our of 12B using RDFa, all of which express non-trivial semantic objects, use xmlns: - strong uptake. ←
15:20:41 <webr3> q+
Nathan Rixham: q+ ←
15:18:58 <tinkster> General discussion about CURIEs in HTML5 - people have the choice in RDFa 1.1 to use full URIs or CURIEs and people aren't messing up xmlns:
General discussion about CURIEs in HTML5 - people have the choice in RDFa 1.1 to use full URIs or CURIEs and people aren't messing up xmlns: ←
15:20:49 <manu1> ack [IPcaller]
Manu Sporny: ack [IPcaller] ←
15:23:34 <manu1> Topic: Last Call Review
15:23:58 <tinkster> manu: any issues we've missed?
Manu Sporny: any issues we've missed? ←
15:24:29 <tinkster> Toby: I've not yet provided responses for mine (draft for one, no draft for the other yet)
Toby Inkster: I've not yet provided responses for mine (draft for one, no draft for the other yet) ←
15:24:33 <ivan> ISSUE-70?
15:24:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-70 -- RDFa Core 1.1 LC comments about versioning from Jeni Tennison -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-70 -- RDFa Core 1.1 LC comments about versioning from Jeni Tennison -- open ←
15:24:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/70
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/70 ←
15:24:47 <tinkster> ShaneM: we've not discussed issue 70 yet.
Shane McCarron: we've not discussed ISSUE-70 yet. ←
15:25:01 <tinkster> manu: mostly seems to be editorial/won't fix?
Manu Sporny: mostly seems to be editorial/won't fix? ←
15:24:47 <tinkster> ShaneM: I disagree - how do we respond to her @version question?
Shane McCarron: I disagree - how do we respond to her @version question? ←
15:25:20 <manu1> Subtopic: ISSUE-70: RDFa Core 1.1 LC comments about versioning from Jeni Tennison
15:26:03 <manu1> scribenick: manu
(Scribe set to Manu Sporny)
15:26:17 <manu1> Ivan: I think we discussed some of this before
Ivan Herman: I think we discussed some of this before ←
15:26:54 <manu1> Ivan: I think what she's asking for is that processors should be able to recognize whether or not they're processing a 1.0 vs. 1.1 document.
Ivan Herman: I think what she's asking for is that processors should be able to recognize whether or not they're processing a 1.0 vs. 1.1 document. ←
15:26:55 <webr3> q+
Nathan Rixham: q+ ←
15:27:01 <manu1> ack [IPcaller]
ack [IPcaller] ←
15:28:04 <manu1> Nathan: As far as I can tell, I think she's saying that if she uses the same processor for a RDFa 1.0 vs 1.1 document there's no way for her to tell the difference between the two?
Nathan Rixham: As far as I can tell, I think she's saying that if she uses the same processor for a RDFa 1.0 vs 1.1 document there's no way for her to tell the difference between the two? ←
15:28:19 <manu1> ShaneM: There is a @version attribute in 1.1 - but only in XHTML
Shane McCarron: There is a @version attribute in 1.1 - but only in XHTML ←
15:31:39 <manu1> Manu: ... <explains what he thinks that Jenny wants> ... One of the things is impossible to support - we can't support an RDFa 1.0 processor processing a RDFa 1.1 document and producing a subset of the triples of an RDFa 1.1 processor because of the backwards-incompatible changes. We'd need a switch. People don't use @version.
Manu Sporny: ... <explains what he thinks that Jenny wants> ... One of the things is impossible to support - we can't support an RDFa 1.0 processor processing a RDFa 1.1 document and producing a subset of the triples of an RDFa 1.1 processor because of the backwards-incompatible changes. We'd need a switch. People don't use @version. ←
15:33:58 <ShaneM> Isn't this what she wants? http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#a_history
Shane McCarron: Isn't this what she wants? http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#a_history ←
15:36:25 <ShaneM> we said "There SHOULD be a @version attribute on the html element with the value "XHTML+RDFa 1.0""
Shane McCarron: we said "There SHOULD be a @version attribute on the html element with the value "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"" ←
15:37:29 <manu1> ShaneM: @version is required for XHTML+RDFa 1.0 documents.
Shane McCarron: @version is required for XHTML+RDFa 1.0 documents. ←
15:37:34 <manu1> Ivan: We don't say that
Ivan Herman: We don't say that ←
15:37:46 <manu1> ShaneM: I didn't mean to imply that - that's how my processor works.
Shane McCarron: I didn't mean to imply that - that's how my processor works. ←
15:37:56 <manu1> Ivan: My processor doesn't do anything w/ @version attribute
Ivan Herman: My processor doesn't do anything w/ @version attribute ←
15:37:56 <manu1> Manu: Mine either.
Manu Sporny: Mine either. ←
15:38:39 <manu1> Ivan: I don't see any way to allow RDFa 1.0 processors to process RDFa 1.1 documents w/ things like @profile and @prefix etc.
Ivan Herman: I don't see any way to allow RDFa 1.0 processors to process RDFa 1.1 documents w/ things like @profile and @prefix etc. ←
15:39:28 <manu1> Ivan: I think what she's asking for is guidance, not a new processor feature that ensures that RDFa 1.0 processors can process RDFa 1.1 documents w/ RDFa 1.1 attributes.
Ivan Herman: I think what she's asking for is guidance, not a new processor feature that ensures that RDFa 1.0 processors can process RDFa 1.1 documents w/ RDFa 1.1 attributes. ←
15:39:35 <manu1> scribenick: tinkster
(Scribe set to Toby Inkster)
15:40:01 <tinkster> manu: does anyone believe that @version will help processors?
Manu Sporny: does anyone believe that @version will help processors? ←
15:43:53 <tinkster> ivan: @version is useful for Jeni's first question, but useless for the second.
Ivan Herman: @version is useful for Jeni's first question, but useless for the second. ←
15:46:04 <tinkster> ShaneM: should we document techniques for processors to conform to 1.0 and 1.1?
Shane McCarron: should we document techniques for processors to conform to 1.0 and 1.1? ←
15:46:28 <tinkster> ivan: we could mention @version as a switch for modes?
Ivan Herman: we could mention @version as a switch for modes? ←
15:46:38 <tinkster> ShaneM: we could also use <!doctype>
Shane McCarron: we could also use <!doctype> ←
15:47:03 <tinkster> ivan: in many XML processors, it's simpler to get the attribute than to find the doctype.
Ivan Herman: in many XML processors, it's simpler to get the attribute than to find the doctype. ←
15:47:59 <tinkster> manu: i don't think we should change processing rules. we could add a section on compatibility though.
Manu Sporny: i don't think we should change processing rules. we could add a section on compatibility though. ←
15:48:39 <tinkster> manu: overall i think our goal should be to tell people to just use 1.1.
Manu Sporny: overall i think our goal should be to tell people to just use 1.1. ←
15:48:43 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:48:52 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
15:49:44 <tinkster> Ivan: for a conformant 1.1 processor, if i get a 1.0 document, what's the proper behaviour?
Ivan Herman: for a conformant 1.1 processor, if i get a 1.0 document, what's the proper behaviour? ←
15:50:00 <tinkster> manu: process as 1.1.
Manu Sporny: process as 1.1. ←
15:50:01 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss 1.0 support
Shane McCarron: q+ to discuss 1.0 support ←
15:50:11 <manu1> ack ShaneM
Manu Sporny: ack ShaneM ←
15:50:11 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss 1.0 support
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to discuss 1.0 support ←
15:51:24 <tinkster> ShaneM: if I see "1.0", then surely the correct behaviour is to treat it as 1.0. otherwise we're as bad as HTML5. ;-)
Shane McCarron: if I see "1.0", then surely the correct behaviour is to treat it as 1.0. otherwise we're as bad as HTML5. ;-) ←
15:52:24 <tinkster> ivan: it's quite simple to switch.
Ivan Herman: it's quite simple to switch. ←
15:53:11 <tinkster> manu: it would be strange if we suggested @version to detect but didn't define a @version attribute in 1.1. We need to be consistent.
Manu Sporny: it would be strange if we suggested @version to detect but didn't define a @version attribute in 1.1. We need to be consistent. ←
15:53:34 <webr3> q+
Nathan Rixham: q+ ←
15:53:55 <tinkster> manu: we'd have a big fight with HTMLWG if we added @version.
Manu Sporny: we'd have a big fight with HTMLWG if we added @version. ←
15:53:58 <manu1> ack [IPcaller]
Manu Sporny: ack [IPcaller] ←
15:54:21 <tinkster> toby: points out that HTML4, XHTML 1.x, HTML 3.2 and HTML 2.0 all had @version.
Toby Inkster: points out that HTML4, XHTML 1.x, HTML 3.2 and HTML 2.0 all had @version. ←
15:55:38 <ShaneM> why is it a bad idea to give people the opportuntity to tell a processor what version of RDFa is in a document they write? why?
Shane McCarron: why is it a bad idea to give people the opportuntity to tell a processor what version of RDFa is in a document they write? why? ←
15:55:47 <ShaneM> s/I write/they write/
Shane McCarron: s/I write/they write/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
15:55:47 <manu1> because they won't use it
Manu Sporny: because they won't use it ←
15:55:56 <manu1> and it becomes useless very quickly if it's optional
Manu Sporny: and it becomes useless very quickly if it's optional ←
15:56:10 <manu1> and if it's not optional, their documents break - same issue w/ @version in HTML4 vs HTML5
Manu Sporny: and if it's not optional, their documents break - same issue w/ @version in HTML4 vs HTML5 ←
15:57:31 <tinkster> webr3: we need to not just announce which version of RDFa is being ignored, but whether RDFa is being used at all. What's our announcement mechanism?
Nathan Rixham: we need to not just announce which version of RDFa is being ignored, but whether RDFa is being used at all. What's our announcement mechanism? ←
15:58:37 <tinkster> manu: to completely ignore any document that doesn't have @version will not work - google, yahoo, etc want to get as much information as possible, whether or not document authors stuck to the rules.
Manu Sporny: to completely ignore any document that doesn't have @version will not work - google, yahoo, etc want to get as much information as possible, whether or not document authors stuck to the rules. ←
15:58:42 <tinkster> ivan: agrees
Ivan Herman: agrees ←
16:00:01 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:00:13 <tinkster> We can require @version to be conformant for authors without forbidding consumers from being liberal in what they accept.
We can require @version to be conformant for authors without forbidding consumers from being liberal in what they accept. ←
16:00:46 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
16:01:42 <tinkster> ivan: my approach - an RDFa 1.1 processor that sees a 1.0 @version attribute SHOULD/MUST attempt to maintain backwards compatibility.
Ivan Herman: my approach - an RDFa 1.1 processor that sees a 1.0 @version attribute SHOULD/MUST attempt to maintain backwards compatibility. ←
16:02:08 <ShaneM> Note that I do not think we need to specify any of this in RDFa 1.1. We said it in 1.0. incompletely. that horse has left the barn.
Shane McCarron: Note that I do not think we need to specify any of this in RDFa 1.1. We said it in 1.0. incompletely. that horse has left the barn. ←
16:02:28 <tinkster> ... and thus we should allow people to use version="RDFa 1.1" for those people who want to target a specific version.
... and thus we should allow people to use version="RDFa 1.1" for those people who want to target a specific version. ←
16:03:09 <ShaneM> FYI @version in XHTML+RDFa has a value of 'XHTML+RDFa 1.1"
Shane McCarron: FYI @version in XHTML+RDFa has a value of 'XHTML+RDFa 1.1" ←
16:04:52 <tinkster> ShaneM: we could say this in core. @version is still in the spec, we just don't say authors SHOULD use it any more.
Shane McCarron: we could say this in core. @version is still in the spec, we just don't say authors SHOULD use it any more. ←
16:06:11 <tinkster> manu: OK, we need to come up with @version values for HTML4+RDFa, HTML5+RDFa.
Manu Sporny: OK, we need to come up with @version values for HTML4+RDFa, HTML5+RDFa. ←
16:06:21 <manu1> version="HTML+RDFa 1.0"
Manu Sporny: version="HTML+RDFa 1.0" ←
16:06:22 <manu1> version="HTML+RDFa 1.1"
Manu Sporny: version="HTML+RDFa 1.1" ←
16:06:24 <manu1> version="HTML4+RDFa 1.1"
Manu Sporny: version="HTML4+RDFa 1.1" ←
16:06:27 <manu1> version="HTML5+RDFa 1.1"
Manu Sporny: version="HTML5+RDFa 1.1" ←
16:06:32 <webr3> RDFa 1.1
Nathan Rixham: RDFa 1.1 ←
16:06:40 <manu1> version="RDFa 1.1"
Manu Sporny: version="RDFa 1.1" ←
16:07:22 <ShaneM> version="RDFa11" ?
Shane McCarron: version="RDFa11" ? ←
16:07:30 <tinkster> Toby: I think I look for version =~ /RDFa\s*([0-9\.]+)/i
Toby Inkster: I think I look for version =~ /RDFa\s*([0-9\.]+)/i ←
16:07:53 <webr3> rdfa="1.1"
Nathan Rixham: rdfa="1.1" ←
16:08:54 <tinkster> Ivan: Nathan suggests rdfa="1.1", on the root element. Not such a bad idea.
Ivan Herman: Nathan suggests rdfa="1.1", on the root element. Not such a bad idea. ←
16:09:08 <webr3> if you see @version = 1.0 then infer rdfa="1.0"
Nathan Rixham: if you see @version = 1.0 then infer rdfa="1.0" ←
16:09:27 <Steven> I would rather argue for the use of an existing attribute
Steven Pemberton: I would rather argue for the use of an existing attribute ←
16:10:13 <Steven> <meta about="" property="rdfa:version" content="1.1"/>
Steven Pemberton: <meta about="" property="rdfa:version" content="1.1"/> ←
16:10:25 <tinkster> ShaneM: Ben would say that many authors can't access <html> - they're using wikis and CMSes. What are they supposed to do?
Shane McCarron: Ben would say that many authors can't access <html> - they're using wikis and CMSes. What are they supposed to do? ←
16:10:37 <Knud> the default version is the latest available RDFa spec?
Knud Möller: the default version is the latest available RDFa spec? ←
16:10:47 <ShaneM> knud: yes
Knud Möller: yes [ Scribe Assist by Shane McCarron ] ←
16:11:12 <tinkster> Toby: Steven's idea would require parsing RDFa to know how to parse RDFa?
Toby Inkster: Steven's idea would require parsing RDFa to know how to parse RDFa? ←
16:12:00 <tinkster> manu: We're past the hour now, so bye bye to those who can't stick around.
Manu Sporny: We're past the hour now, so bye bye to those who can't stick around. ←
16:12:03 <Steven> Sorry I can't stay, have to get kids
Steven Pemberton: Sorry I can't stay, have to get kids ←
16:12:16 <Zakim> -tinkster1
Zakim IRC Bot: -tinkster1 ←
16:12:22 <Zakim> -Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven ←
16:19:23 <manu1> ShaneM: There is an issue w/ requiring @version
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Shane McCarron: There is an issue w/ requiring @version [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:19:54 <manu1> ShaneM: If we want to introduce an rdfa attribute in the root element in rdfa core and assign it the value of "1.1" - I don't know about the HTML WG folks.
Shane McCarron: If we want to introduce an rdfa attribute in the root element in rdfa core and assign it the value of "1.1" - I don't know about the HTML WG folks. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:20:40 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020108/#version-att
Shane McCarron: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020108/#version-att ←
16:22:57 <manu1> Nathan: RDFa is seen as an extension of HTML, not a part of HTML - if it's an extension, do we need a version for the extension?
Nathan Rixham: RDFa is seen as an extension of HTML, not a part of HTML - if it's an extension, do we need a version for the extension? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:23:24 <manu1> Nathan: In some cases it'll be seen as part of HTML in others it'll be seen as an extension - @version doesn't apply to everything.
Nathan Rixham: In some cases it'll be seen as part of HTML in others it'll be seen as an extension - @version doesn't apply to everything. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:23:36 <manu1> Nathan: No way to detect a version when people want to just place snippets in there.
Nathan Rixham: No way to detect a version when people want to just place snippets in there. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:24:08 <manu1> version="*RDFa 1.0*
Manu Sporny: version="*RDFa 1.0* ←
16:24:11 <manu1> version="*RDFa 1.1*
Manu Sporny: version="*RDFa 1.1* ←
16:24:14 <manu1> version="*RDFa 2.0*
Manu Sporny: version="*RDFa 2.0* ←
16:26:19 <ShaneM> PROPOSAL: introduce @version in RDFa core with a value of RDFa 1.1. If it sees the 1.0 string, then it is processed as 1.0. If it sees 1.1 it processes as 1.1. if it sees nothing, it will be treated as the latest version of RDFa (currently 1.1).
PROPOSED: introduce @version in RDFa core with a value of RDFa 1.1. If it sees the 1.0 string, then it is processed as 1.0. If it sees 1.1 it processes as 1.1. if it sees nothing, it will be treated as the latest version of RDFa (currently 1.1). ←
16:27:33 <tinkster> -1 (SVG compat)
-1 (SVG compat) ←
16:28:28 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
16:28:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, manu1, Ivan, Knud, Benjamin, [IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ShaneM, manu1, Ivan, Knud, Benjamin, [IPcaller] ←
16:28:33 <ShaneM> so we are back to the 'rdfa' attribute?
Shane McCarron: so we are back to the 'rdfa' attribute? ←
16:28:33 <manu1> I don't like the rdfa attribute - what other language does that?
Manu Sporny: I don't like the rdfa attribute - what other language does that? ←
16:30:48 <webr3> does svg not use a doctype?
Nathan Rixham: does svg not use a doctype? ←
16:30:48 <manu1> Nathan: What about @version is supported in XHTML languages, but not in HTML family languages?
Nathan Rixham: What about @version is supported in XHTML languages, but not in HTML family languages? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:31:31 <Zakim> -Knud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Knud ←
16:33:24 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Re-introduce @version in XHTML+RDFa 1.1. If an RDFa Processor sees the string "RDFa 1.0", then it is processed as 1.0. If it sees "RDFa 1.1", it is processed as 1.1. If the processor does not see @version in XHTML+RDFa, the latest processing rules are used. If a Host Language doesn't allow specification via @version, the latest processing rules are used.
PROPOSED: Re-introduce @version in XHTML+RDFa 1.1. If an RDFa Processor sees the string "RDFa 1.0", then it is processed as 1.0. If it sees "RDFa 1.1", it is processed as 1.1. If the processor does not see @version in XHTML+RDFa, the latest processing rules are used. If a Host Language doesn't allow specification via @version, the latest processing rules are used. ←
16:34:02 <tinkster> +1
+1 ←
16:34:06 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
16:34:35 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:34:36 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
16:34:36 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
16:34:46 <manu1> RESOLVED: Re-introduce @version in XHTML+RDFa 1.1. If an RDFa Processor sees the string "RDFa 1.0", then it is processed as 1.0. If it sees "RDFa 1.1", it is processed as 1.1. If the processor does not see @version in XHTML+RDFa, the latest processing rules are used. If a Host Language doesn't allow specification via @version, the latest processing rules are used.
RESOLVED: Re-introduce @version in XHTML+RDFa 1.1. If an RDFa Processor sees the string "RDFa 1.0", then it is processed as 1.0. If it sees "RDFa 1.1", it is processed as 1.1. If the processor does not see @version in XHTML+RDFa, the latest processing rules are used. If a Host Language doesn't allow specification via @version, the latest processing rules are used. ←
16:34:50 <webr3> +1 (but recognise caveat that RDFa always has to maintain backwards compat the same way HTML does w/ different rules for processors, and XHTML essentially needs it's own per version strict rules modes)
Nathan Rixham: +1 (but recognise caveat that RDFa always has to maintain backwards compat the same way HTML does w/ different rules for processors, and XHTML essentially needs it's own per version strict rules modes) ←
16:35:31 <ivan> zakim, bye
Ivan Herman: zakim, bye ←
16:35:31 <Zakim> leaving. As of this point the attendees were ShaneM, manu1, Ivan, +47.85.583.aaaa, tinkster1, Knud, +49.631.205.75.aabb, Benjamin, [IPcaller], Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: leaving. As of this point the attendees were ShaneM, manu1, Ivan, +47.85.583.aaaa, tinkster1, Knud, +49.631.205.75.aabb, Benjamin, [IPcaller], Steven ←
16:35:37 <ivan> zakim, drop me
Ivan Herman: zakim, drop me ←
16:36:53 <manu1> Topic: Last Call timeframe
16:37:18 <manu1> Manu: We'll try for new Editors draft documents in 2 weeks
Manu Sporny: We'll try for new Editors draft documents in 2 weeks [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:37:30 <manu1> Manu: 2nd Last Call publication in 3-4 weeks from now.
Manu Sporny: 2nd Last Call publication in 3-4 weeks from now. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:38:16 <webr3> zakim, drop me
Nathan Rixham: zakim, drop me ←
16:40:58 <manu1> RRSAgent, make logs public
Manu Sporny: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
16:41:07 <manu1> RRSAgent, help?
Manu Sporny: RRSAgent, help? ←
16:41:07 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'help'
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'help' ←
16:41:16 <manu1> RRSAgent, publish minutes
Manu Sporny: RRSAgent, publish minutes ←
16:41:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-rdfa-minutes.html manu1# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000208
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-rdfa-minutes.html manu1# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000208 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe