16:10:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
16:10:59 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/11/16-json-ld-irc
16:11:00 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
16:11:00 <ivan> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
16:11:00 <ivan> Chair: bigbluehat
16:11:00 <ivan> Date: 2018-11-16
16:11:00 <ivan> Regrets+ azaroth, tcole
16:11:00 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2018Nov/0015.html
16:11:01 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2018-11-16: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2018Nov/0015.html
16:52:19 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #json-ld
16:57:24 <bigbluehat> present+
16:57:46 <simonstey> present+
16:57:54 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
16:58:02 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #json-ld
16:59:12 <workergnome> workergnome has joined #json-ld
16:59:48 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld
16:59:50 <ivan> present+
16:59:56 <workergnome> present+
17:00:52 <ajs6f> ajs6f has joined #json-ld
17:01:07 <gkellogg> present+
17:01:13 <ajs6f> present+
17:01:22 <ivan> present+ pchampin
17:02:57 <uskdarli> uskdarli has joined #JSON-LD
17:03:38 <simonstey> Topic: approval of last week's minutes
17:03:40 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-11-09-json-ld
17:04:06 <bigbluehat> scribenick: simonstey
17:04:27 <bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-11-09-json-ld
17:04:35 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: approve minutes and move on ;)
17:04:36 <ivan> +1
17:04:36 <gkellogg> +1
17:04:37 <workergnome> +1
17:04:38 <ajs6f> +1
17:04:38 <bigbluehat> f+1
17:04:40 <simonstey> +1
17:04:47 <bigbluehat> RESOLVED: approve minutes and move on ;)
17:04:48 <pchampin> +1
17:05:04 <simonstey> topic: Face to Face Scheduling
17:05:24 <simonstey> bigbluehat: we are awaiting some info from adam
17:05:56 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #json-ld
17:06:08 <simonstey> ajs6f: we are talking about the february meeting? wasn't aware I was supposed to prepare something
17:06:38 <simonstey> ajs6f: fewer than a dozen people physically? without actual dates it's complicated for me to fix anything
17:07:03 <simonstey> bigbluehat: ok, I reached out to wiley as a backup just in case
17:07:10 <simonstey> ivan: doodle for possible dates?
17:07:40 <simonstey> ... I can't make it at the beginning of feb, ideal would be 18th/19th
17:08:05 <simonstey> ... at the week of the 11th I could only do friday
17:08:22 <simonstey> bigbluehat: 7th/8th?
17:08:38 <simonstey> ivan: yeah.. but it's very close to the meeting in berlin though
17:08:39 <bigbluehat> scheduling around https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/cfp.html is preferred
17:09:24 <simonstey> bigbluehat: 7th/8th is thursday/friday of the first week
17:09:30 <ajs6f> To be clear, I do not expect any difficulties getting a room at SI for February, I just can't get a reservation w/o dates.
17:10:08 <simonstey> ivan: let's pencil mark the 7th/8th for now
17:10:36 <simonstey> bigbluehat: any other annoucements?
17:10:50 <simonstey> topic: What is ‘base’ for embedded json-ld?
17:10:59 <simonstey> bigbluehat: we discussed that one at tpac
17:11:16 <ivan> link: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/23
17:11:27 <simonstey> ... we sent it in for TAG review, and they basically widened the scope
17:11:28 <ivan> Link of the PR: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/93
17:11:43 <gkellogg> q+
17:11:44 <ajs6f> q+
17:11:48 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
17:11:56 <simonstey> gkellogg: there are 2 open PRs
17:12:08 <simonstey> ... 1) basic support for json-ld in html
17:12:33 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/68
17:12:47 <simonstey> ... 2) PR-93 adds text to specifically add text to add html as base
17:13:07 <gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/50
17:13:12 <simonstey> ... in the API spec, it's PR-50
17:13:15 <bigbluehat> ack ajs6f
17:13:16 <ivan> q+
17:13:52 <gkellogg> q+
17:13:57 <simonstey> ajs6f: quick question, what are we expected to do with their comments?
17:14:04 <simonstey> ... shall we respond?
17:14:15 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
17:14:29 <simonstey> ivan: what tehy propose is interesting but beyond our charter
17:14:35 <simonstey> s/tehy/they/
17:14:51 <bigbluehat> q+
17:15:04 <simonstey> ... this would elevate json-ld
17:15:15 <simonstey> ... but yeah beyond our charter
17:15:28 <simonstey> ... I would say this is something the CG has to pick up
17:16:05 <simonstey> ... and we can cross the bridge at some time, but if this is realistic from a manpower perspective I dont know
17:16:34 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/68#issuecomment-438015329
17:16:40 <simonstey> ... regarding the PR-93, there is some stuff about having XML
17:17:16 <simonstey> bigbluehat: the thing I just linked shows how script tags affect html parsing
17:17:49 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
17:18:03 <simonstey> ... it's syntactically correct json-ld
17:18:40 <simonstey> gkellogg: what I did in the PR-68 I call out specifics on how to handle those blocks if the media type is application/json
17:19:18 <ivan> q?
17:19:23 <ivan> q+
17:19:48 <simonstey> ... I think I've taken in the specifics on how content of script tags has to be handled and adjusted in for our needs
17:20:05 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
17:21:01 <simonstey> ... we asked specific questions to TAG, got an answer but they kinda got a bit over enthusiastic
17:21:28 <simonstey> ... out of this needs to come something that improves web platform
17:21:57 <simonstey> bigbluehat: the HTML comments stuff as really bothered me since I've read it
17:22:13 <simonstey> ... but it seems to primarily affect only HTML parsing
17:22:26 <simonstey> ... question is how much of this we need to have in the spec
17:22:54 <simonstey> ... json-ld in script tags vs "raw" json-ld
17:23:15 <gkellogg> q+
17:23:36 <simonstey> ... both have totally different escaping rules and what not.. and none of that has something to do with html base
17:23:51 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
17:24:18 <simonstey> ivan: for the comment storing, the whole section is a normative thing
17:24:35 <simonstey> ... I have the impression this is an HTML problem
17:24:42 <bigbluehat> q+ to mention the danger is what hits the JSON-LD processor
17:25:02 <simonstey> ... which we should certainly mention, but maybe not as part of a normative section
17:25:03 <bigbluehat> HTML5 spec level text about parsing `<script>` tags https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics-scripting.html#restrictions-for-contents-of-script-elements
17:25:57 <simonstey> ... we should officially answer to the TAG and will officially add to the standard what they said about base
17:26:29 <simonstey> ... and that we try to get the CG involved
17:26:32 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
17:26:33 <ajs6f> +1
17:27:29 <simonstey> gkellogg: comments in html and escaping.. it depends on the encoding
17:27:50 <simonstey> ... we don't need to give guidance on how to handle this
17:27:57 <simonstey> ivan: it has to be valid json-ld
17:28:13 <ivan> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/68.html#ex-103-embedding-json-ld-in-html-with-comments
17:28:20 <simonstey> ... that's invalid json
17:28:24 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
17:28:24 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to mention the danger is what hits the JSON-LD processor
17:28:51 <simonstey> gkellogg: that's something you see quite often
17:28:59 <dlehn> present+
17:29:05 <bigbluehat> ivan: because https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics-scripting.html#restrictions-for-contents-of-script-elements
17:29:28 <simonstey> ... comments are often used just to make sure there are no other issues embedded in the script elements that would cause any issues
17:29:41 <simonstey> bigbluehat: I did quite some digging on that issue
17:30:10 <pchampin> q+
17:30:34 <simonstey> ... the DOM parsing is only concerned with what's inside the tags
17:31:06 <simonstey> ... it's just treated as raw string
17:31:38 <simonstey> ... if there's something inside the json-ld an html parser would choke on
17:32:24 <simonstey> ... the json-ld would need to be treated in such a way such that an html parser wouldn't choke on it
17:32:28 <bigbluehat> ack pchampin
17:33:06 <bigbluehat> q+
17:33:15 <simonstey> pchampin: one crazy idea by looking at the json-ld embedded in html comments: you could add a js comment in front of the html comment, making it valid javascript
17:33:27 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
17:33:31 <simonstey> ... it could become technically correct
17:33:41 <simonstey> bigbluehat: sadly it wouldn't
17:33:55 <gkellogg> q+
17:33:59 <simonstey> ... it would continue being parsed
17:34:34 <simonstey> ... we could make it our own parsing space
17:34:43 <hsolbrig> q+
17:34:48 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
17:34:50 <hsolbrig> present+ hsolbrig
17:35:04 <simonstey> ... the question is how far the parser gets before it finds the ending script tag
17:35:36 <simonstey> gkellogg: the json-ld would not be allowed to contain anything that could be interpreted as html and/or html comments
17:35:49 <simonstey> ... not really feasible and also not helping our mission
17:36:11 <simonstey> ... I've outlined multiple approaches to tackle this
17:37:02 <bigbluehat> ack hsolbrig
17:37:43 <bigbluehat> q+
17:37:53 <simonstey> ... there are only a few cases where json-ld would contain things that resemble comments
17:38:21 <simonstey> hsolbrig: why is this an json-ld issue but not a javascript issue?
17:38:35 <simonstey> gkellogg: [explains why it isn't]
17:39:21 <simonstey> gkellogg: it did some test cases for this, exploring corner cases we know of
17:39:29 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
17:39:31 <ivan> q+
17:39:50 <simonstey> ... I don't know how to move forward unless addressing at least some of the stuff from the PR
17:41:07 <simonstey> gkellogg: it describes script tags and data blocks are a subset
17:42:18 <simonstey> bigbluehat: what's breaking it, is the potential of one to too early close the script tag
17:42:38 <simonstey> ... so this would need somehow being taken care of
17:43:41 <simonstey> ... the risk is, the json-ld could contain content that jacks up the html it's contained in
17:43:44 <bigbluehat> q?
17:43:48 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
17:44:43 <simonstey> ivan: is it so horrible to say, if I put json-ld in a script tag I'm supposed to escape anything that html would need to have escaped
17:45:07 <gkellogg> q+
17:45:10 <simonstey> ... thus a json-ld parser would have to do the unescaping
17:45:18 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
17:45:25 <simonstey> ... but you are in HTML regardless.. so
17:45:33 <bigbluehat> q+ to mention one would have similar issues with putting JSON-LD inside a textarea fwiw
17:46:01 <simonstey> gkellogg: for someone who's actually looking at the source, those entities become rather annoying
17:46:20 <simonstey> ivan: realistically, I don't know how often this would happen
17:46:21 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
17:46:21 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to mention one would have similar issues with putting JSON-LD inside a textarea fwiw
17:46:46 <simonstey> bigbluehat: the escaping issue is very similar of putting json-ld inside a text env.
17:46:53 <ivan> q+
17:46:58 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
17:47:27 <simonstey> ivan: I think it's perfectly reasonable to accept both PRs, close the issue
17:47:29 <bigbluehat> q+
17:47:49 <simonstey> ... and open a new issue on the specific problem
17:48:10 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
17:48:20 <simonstey> gkellogg: it's a editor's draft not a working draft
17:48:36 <simonstey> ivan: we would open a issue right away
17:48:43 <ajs6f> q+
17:49:03 <simonstey> bigbluehat: I would only +1 this, if we add a big red AT RISK disclaimer
17:49:21 <simonstey> ivan: a lot of very important things are pending for now
17:49:22 <bigbluehat> ack ajs6f
17:49:40 <bigbluehat> q+
17:49:40 <simonstey> ... I think it's an edge case
17:50:32 <simonstey> ajs6f: I don't think we should use a phrase like "AT RISK" but more something along the lines of "will be part of the final spec but might undergo some changes"
17:51:10 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
17:51:13 <simonstey> ivan: we cannot commit ourselves to having always consistent editor's drafts
17:51:43 <simonstey> bigbluehat: I'm not sure we have reached consensus on all the things contained
17:52:54 <pchampin> +q to propose something like application/ld+json;escaped=html ?
17:53:03 <simonstey> gkellogg: I cannot work on other open issues
17:53:07 <bigbluehat> ack pchampin
17:53:07 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to propose something like application/ld+json;escaped=html ?
17:53:16 <ivan> q+
17:53:50 <simonstey> pchampin: what about a parameter on the media type hinting at having to do escaping?
17:54:17 <pchampin> s/escaping/unescaping/
17:54:34 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: merge open HTML related PRs #93 and #68 and #50 after adding "At Risk" (or similar terminology) to present that things are not finalized
17:54:42 <bigbluehat> +1
17:54:44 <ajs6f> +1
17:55:45 <simonstey> ivan: what does "that" mean?
17:56:13 <gkellogg> +1
17:56:29 <ajs6f> q+
17:56:34 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
17:56:46 <simonstey> bigbluehat: I don't want to have stuff merged without reaching consensus
17:57:02 <simonstey> ... but I could live with having it marked as being "at risk" or similar
17:58:01 <simonstey> ivan: putting things that are already done "at risk" would be going backwards
17:58:32 <bigbluehat> ack ajs6f
17:58:41 <simonstey> ... opening a new issue that highlights things that are still being discussed would be ok
17:58:56 <simonstey> ... having the feeling that ~90% are done
17:59:03 <bigbluehat> q+
17:59:20 <simonstey> ajs6f: I have to generally agree with ivan
17:59:44 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
17:59:56 <ivan> +1
17:59:58 <simonstey> ... it seems for me very unlikely that we would stop talking about it
18:00:03 <workergnome> +1
18:00:07 <hsolbrig> +1
18:00:15 <simonstey> bigbluehat: I'm fine with merging those
18:00:17 <simonstey> +1
18:00:17 <ivan> Resolved: merge open HTML related PRs #93 and #68 and #50 after adding "At Risk" (or similar terminology) to present that things are not finalized
18:00:20 <pchampin> +1
18:01:03 <simonstey> bigbluehat: no call next week!
18:01:16 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:01:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/11/16-json-ld-minutes.html ivan
18:01:16 <ivan> zakim, bye
18:01:16 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
18:01:16 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
18:01:16 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been bigbluehat, simonstey, ivan, workergnome, gkellogg, ajs6f, pchampin, dlehn, hsolbrig
18:01:16 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld
18:01:17 <simonstey> ... eating turkeys and what not ;)