W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Telecon Agenda, Thursday 24 April 2008, 1500 UTC

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:09:33 -0700
Message-ID: <480FC1AD.3020803@adida.net>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


Some thoughts since I won't be available for the call.

> 1) Action Items:
> http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary

I chatted with Mark offline and he gave me the thumbs up on moving ahead 
with the Primer, so I did. Apart from that, my other actions continue.

> 2) ISSUE-114: RDFa for dynamic content?
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/114

I don't think we should modify any normative portion of the 
specification, but we probably want to point out that, given the 
DOM-recursive approach to parsing RDFa and the DOM-focused way of 
dynamic HTML updating (either through innerHTML or .appendChild()), that 
we expect it to be possible to do incremental RDFa parsing with dynamic 
content. I don't think we need to specify anything more, since nothing 
changes normatively: a page at any given time can be parsed for RDFa. 
Whether you optimize for dynamic content or re-parse completely when the 
DOM changes is an implementation issue.

(Now, if someone wants to build a test suite for dynamically updated 
HTML..... that would be a pretty interesting project, but not one that 
should hold up our work. :)

> 3) ISSUE-116: Safe CURIEs using "curie:dc:creator"?
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/116

Seeing as how this was brought up by Creative Commons, I am amenable to 
this and think it might resolve some of the controversy around CURIEs in 
HTML. I also think that we use Safe CURIEs rarely enough that this 
change wouldn't impact implementors too much.

> 4) ISSUE-11: RDFa Primer document
>    (we should close this - it is no longer applicable)
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/11
> 
> 5) ISSUE-43: Primer should link to the URIs of the assumed namespaces
>    (we should close this - it is no longer applicable)
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/43

Yes, although please don't close the issues in the tracker as I'm trying 
to keep them open until we respond to the authors, get an okay, and get 
to CR where we agree the issue is closed :)

> 6) ISSUE-113: clarify situation around document fragments containing RDFa
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/113

I think this is an important use case: copy&paste. That said, I am 
hesitant about adding normative language for this, as it could take 
quite a while (plus I'm not sure how we would go about testing this...)

In my opinion, a non-normative statement that talks about copying the 
namespace and xml:lang declarations into the fragment, in much the same 
way we do XMLLiterals, is sufficient.

-Ben
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 23:10:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:27 UTC