- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:32:39 -0400
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org
The minutes of today's RDFa telecon [1] are now available for review.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes
----
RDF-in-XHTML TF
05 Jun 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jun/0003.html
See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-05-29
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-rdfa-minutes.html
Attendees
Present
Ralph Swick, Steven Pemberton, Manu Sporny, Shane McCarrob,
Ben Adida, Mark Birbeck
Regrets
Michael Hausenblas
Chair
Ben
Scribe
Ralph
Contents
* Topics
1. Action Items
2. ISSUE-111: XSLT conformance levels
3. ISSUE-113: document fragments
4. TAG comments
5. Clean Room implementation status
* Summary of Action Items
_____________________________________________________
Action Items
ACTION: [DONE] Shane draft a TAG response along the lines of "we
will update the namespace document, both the prose and the
machine-readable and all documents of type XHTML1 have RDF triples"
[recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-rdfa-minutes.html#action06
Shane: this was integrated into Steven's message
ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL transform
transferred to W3C [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
[CONTINUES]
[13] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01
Ben: I believe INRIA will be dual-licensing their code under LGPL
ACTION: Ralph confirm whether LGPL is ok with W3C [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action03]
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action03
ACTION: Manu to reach out to Slashdot and attempt to get RDFa
integrated into Slashdot. [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
[CONTINUES]
[15] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action10
Manu: I've sent email, need to look for a response
ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded
in [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[CONTINUES]
[16] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
ACTION: Michael to determine which useless-triples test cases to
remove and which to add. [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[CONTINUES]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
Manu: I'll take this action from Michael
... I've already removed the tests that should be removed
... I think there are 3 useless-triple test cases that should be
added
ACTION: Manu complete test suite [by Thursday 12 June] [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action07
ACTION: Ralph to help Ben with Last Call Comment report [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action08
ISSUE-111: XSLT conformance levels
-> [20]issue 111
[20] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/111
Manu: I've been talking with Ivan and Micah Dubinko about this
... XSLT implementations will have two problems: whitespace
preservation and inclusion of namespaces in XML literals
... Micah thinks this will be a black mark against RDFa if it
requires whitespace preservation
... and Ivan doesn't like the way we're doing namespaces in XML
literals
<ShaneM> I would just say it is a "SHOULD"
Manu: Micah suggests that the spec make whitespace preservation
optional
... either for XSLT alone or for all implementations
Ben: I'm opposed to doing something special for XSLT1
... if we make whitespace preservation optional, we should do it for
all implementations
Ralph: +1 to not treating XSLT differently
Ben: if we do make these optional, how will that affect
interoperability?
... will people not be able to rely on XML literals?
Shane: we decided that whitespace should be preserved
... and we said the underlying spec determines how namespaces are
preserved in XML literals
... if we make namespace preservation optional, that reduces the
utility of that part of the spec in my opinion
Manu: the namespace problem is that XSLT1 doesn't appear to be able
to add xmlns attributes to the top-level element
... Ivan did say he thought there was a way to get @xmlns into every
element but these would overwrite any other @xmlns in those
elements, so that would be wrong
Ben: not carrying the namespaces inside XML literal would simply be
wrong
Manu: there are some large practical implementations
Ralph: we are not required to show that all implementations fully
implement the spec
... we are only required to show that all features have been
implemented somewhere
Shane: Ben made an important point that we should not make an
exception for broken tools
... if there are tools that can't support the spec, then those are
not suitable implementation tools
Ben: but these shortcomings can point to design issues in the spec
... I don't feel that the XML Literal design is wrong
... however, the whitespace preservation could be changed
Steven: XML does not specify whether whitespace is preserved or not
... XML says there are two sorts of whitespace preservation; default
and preserved
... you don't know whether 'default' preserves whitespace
... there's no way XSLT can know how the source language specifys
whitespace preservation
... and the default may be 'preserve'
... so XSLT has no business touching whitespace at all
Ben: so I propose we make no change
<msporny> +1
Ralph: +1 to no change
<ShaneM> +1 for no change
Mark: agree
... could we slightly change the wording to say 'if you support XML
Literals, then this is how you should support them'
... i.e. we could allow implementations to not support XML Literal
Ralph: I'd rather we consider these as implementation bugs and let
the community experience determine how important it is for any given
implementation to fix its bug
... we decided in favor of whitespace preservation on the basis that
those (few?) applications who really cared had no other way to get
whitespace
... the deployment experience can show whether those applications
really influence implementations
<benadida> PROPOSAL: in response to ISSUE-111, we do not believe a
change in the spec is necessary. We believe that, architecturally,
whitespace and namespace preservation are important. We rely on
deployment experience to inform the specifics of complete
implementations.
<Steven> Here's a case <pre about="something"
property="my:implementation">function f(a); ... lots of lines
...</pre>
<benadida> PROPOSAL: in response to ISSUE-111, we do not believe a
change in the spec is justified. We believe that, architecturally,
whitespace and namespace preservation are important. We rely on
deployment experience to ....
PROPOSAL: in response to ISSUE-111, we do not believe a change in
the spec is justifiable. We believe that, architecturally,
whitespace and namespace preservation are important. We will rely on
deployment experience to inform specific implementation techniques.
<benadida> +1
<msporny> +1
<Steven> +1
<ShaneM> +1
RESOLUTION: in response to ISSUE-111, we do not believe a change in
the spec is justifiable. We believe that, architecturally,
whitespace and namespace preservation are important. We will rely on
deployment experience to inform specific implementation techniques.
ISSUE-113: document fragments
-> [21]issue 113
[21] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/113
<benadida> I'd drafted [22]public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0030.html
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008May/0030.html
Ben: we've been careful to specify that triples are only present in
complete documents
<ShaneM> [23]ED-rdfa-syntax-20080603/#sec_3.9.
[23] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080603/#sec_3.9.
Ben: any objections to 0030 ?
<markbirbeck> I think "dataRSS" is "DataRSS".
<Steven> Two many "only"s in that sentence
<ShaneM> kk thanks
Ralph: the critical sentence is the first one in the last paragraph
of 3.9. I support this
<msporny> +1 to the language in
[24]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080603/#sec_3.9.
[24] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080603/#sec_3.9.
<Steven> "and thus only yield their true triples only once they are
placed"
Mark: is this actually responding to the question?
... in the spirit of allowing experimentation, I'd prefer not to be
so strict
... just say that to determine the triples you need the full
document context
<Steven> What about multi namespace documents?
<Zakim> Steven, you wanted to discuss follow your nose and to talk
about fragments
Steven: my worry is the wording that triples are only revealed in
the full document context
... I'd like SVG fragments to contain triples
Ben: I believe there will be applications that do extract triples
from DataRSS
... but I think we need to defer the standardization of that for a
future version
Mark: the current language is more rigid than we need
Steven: I'd say "only once they are placed in complete documents"
Mark: if we're trying to address "be careful when you put fragments
in" then just say that
PROPOSE: s/fragments only have all of their context and thus only
yield their true triples only once they are placed within"/triples
in fragments must be interpreted in the context of a"
Steven: I'm just asking that RDF triples be extractable from SVG+
Shane: but this spec is not covering SVG
<Steven> But it is covering the xhtml namespace
<ShaneM> I think that means it would read like this: <p>While these
uses are legitimate, and their results may be predictable if the
fragments are carefully constructed, remember that XHTML+RDFa is not
specified for XHTML fragments; triples in fragments must be
interpreted in the context
<ShaneM> of a complete XHTML+RDFa document.
<ShaneM> Consequently, authors should craft these fragments
carefully and
<ShaneM> consider the various ways in which a given fragment can be
framed.</p>
Ralph: and, specifically, in response to Micah's request that opened
issue 113 we're explicitly _not_ specifying processing rules for
fragments
Steven: but some folks claim there is no XHTML on the Web today
because they strictly apply the specifications and don't find
documents that use the correct media type
... it may depend on what Micah means by 'fragments'
<markbirbeck> "A common situation will be to take fragments of
XHTML+RDFa and move them from one document to another. This may be
through the use of tools, such as cut-and-paste, or through snippets
of code that are provided by organisations such as Creative Commons.
However, authors should be aware that this specification does not
say how these fragments should be processed outside of a document
(although future versions will address this). They can of course be
in
Steven: if he's thinking of multiple namespace documents then it is
bad to exclude RDFa from them
Ralph: Micah's message specifically referred to copy-and-paste
Ben: WAI PF WG also mentioned fragments
Steven: but if Micah is only referring to bits of XHTML lying
around, then we're fine
<benadida> PROPOSE: resolve ISSUE-113 as "we will not be specifying
processing rules for fragments, though a future version of the spec
may do so. We don't rule out the use case."
Ralph: +1 to proposal
<msporny> +1
<markbirbeck> +1
Shane: ok
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-113 as "we will not be specifying processing
rules for fragments, though a future version of the spec may do so.
We don't rule out the use case."
ACTION: Mark to tweak paragraph 3.9 of the spec on fragments.
[recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
[25] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action09
TAG comments
Steven: we're discussing the wording of the response
... issue about the media type
... our reply is along the lines of 'HTML and XHTML have always
contained assertions and this is just another way to express those
assertions'
... I think this is completely independent of media type because of
mixed-namespace documents
... you can't tell from the media type whether a document actually
uses the XHTML namespace
... our XHTML namespace tells you how to interpret the XHTML
attributes [in a mixed-namespace document]
Shane: the got-ya here is that some TAG participants view media type
as an announcement mechanism
... and we're saying "no, media type is not an announcement
mechanism"
Steven: ok, now I'm ready to send the response to the TAG
ACTION: Shane produce a CR-ready draft for SWD and XHTML2 WGs to
approve [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
[26] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action10
<Ralph> Shane++
<ShaneM> Note that the week of the 16th is ugly for a transition
call - please start scheduling it ASAP!
Clean Room implementation status
Ben: I'm well along with this
... the only problems I'm having have nothing to do with the spec
... the general structure with deep @rel, chaining, etc. is working
for me just fine in Ruby
<Ralph> Ben++
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Manu complete test suite [by Thursday 12 June]
[recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Mark to tweak paragraph 3.9 of the spec on fragments.
[recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph confirm whether LGPL is ok with W3C [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph to help Ben with Last Call Comment report
[recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: Shane produce a CR-ready draft for SWD and XHTML2 WGs
to approve [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
[27] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action07
[28] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action09
[29] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action03
[30] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action08
[31] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action10
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL
transform transferred to W3C [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu to reach out to Slashdot and attempt to get
RDFa integrated into Slashdot. [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
[PENDING] ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki
[recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu to determine which useless-triples test cases
to remove and which to add. [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[32] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01
[33] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action10
[34] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
[35] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
[DONE] ACTION: Shane draft a TAG response along the lines of "we
will update the namespace document, both the prose and the
machine-readable and all documents of type XHTML1 have RDF triples"
[recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]
[36] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-rdfa-minutes.html#action06
[End of minutes]
_____________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [37]scribe.perl version 1.133
([38]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/06/05 16:30:54 $
[37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 16:33:39 UTC