- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 12:37:54 -0400
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
- Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org
The minutes [1] from today's RDFa telecon are ready for review.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html
Full text follows, for tracker.
----
RDF-in-XHTML TF
01 May 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0158.html
See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-04-24
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html
Attendees
Present
Manu Sporny, Shane McCarron, Ralph Swick, Ben Adida, Mark
Birbeck, Dan Brickley (guest)
Regrets
Michael Hausenblas, Simone Onofri, Steven Pemberton
Chair
Ben
Scribe
Ralph
Contents
* Topics
1. Action Items
2. Implementation Report
3. Test Cases
4. ISSUE-113
5. ISSUE-115
6. ISSUE-104
* Summary of Action Items
_____________________________________________________
<danbri> may I join?
<danbri> trying to catchup on state of RDFa. Promise to listen/learn
quietly...
Ben: regarding issue 103, last week's discussion about issue 116
seemed to touch on this
Action Items
ACTION: [DONE] Manu to reply PFWG regarding ISSUE-114 [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
ACTION: [DONE] Michael to add a section to Wiki regarding ISSUE-114
[recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
ACTION: [DONE] Michael to reply to Elias and Lee regarding ISSUE-11
[recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
[15] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action13
ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL transform
transferred to W3C [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
[CONTINUES]
[16] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01
Ben: I talked with Fabien and Ivan in Beijing. No obstacles yet.
ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with Steven,
Ralph, and TAG [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
[WITHDRAWN]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08
Shane: I believe this action should be closed
... the XHTML WG has already responded to the TAG
... the XHTML2 WG resolved this 3 months ago
Ben: I did chat with Tim in Beijing and he fully supports updating
the XHTML1 namespace document
ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
[CONTINUES]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09
ACTION: [DONE] Ben to respond to ISSUE-109 with (if possible)
pointers to past discussion of @cite [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
<benadida> [20]my response
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0153.html
ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
[CONTINUES]
[21] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13
ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section
[recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]
[CONTINUES]
[22] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05
ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [DONE]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded
in [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[CONTINUES]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
ACTION: Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded
in [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
[WITHDRAWN]
[25] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07
Implementation Report
<benadida>[26]implementation-report
[26] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/implementation-report/
<danbri> (i wonder if [27]2008.xtech.org/public/schedule/detail/528
is an implementation report; if implementors include publishers, and
not only parser-writers)
[27] http://2008.xtech.org/public/schedule/detail/528
Shane: remember, we don't need the implementation report to _start_
CR
Ralph: yes, but we're hoping for a short CR so let's not let it slip
Manu: does every implementation have to pass every test?
Ralph: no, but every feature should be implemented by at least two
... and ideally there will be at least two implementations that do
pass everything
Ben: we can include every implementation in the report unless we
lose touch with a developer and can't get responses to a test
failure
... I do think there should be at least one javascript
implementation in the report
... Elias is working on a javascript API for the test harness
Test Cases
Ben: status of tests?
Manu: there are only two pending; let's defer this to next telecon
Manu: I'm not aware of any new tests entering the pipeline
Mark: change made in Shane's CVS repository, will be in the next
editors' draft he publishes
ISSUE-113
<benadida> [28]issue 113
[28] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/113
-> [29]previous discussion
[29] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#item06
Manu: the resolution boiled down to "we don't specify this"
... Shane pointed out that the meaning of a fragment may change
entirely when put into another document
Ben: it's possible to write a chunk of XHTML+RDFa that will preserve
its meaning across documents
Shane: I disagree; in the context of this document we have no formal
definition of the behaviour
Ben: in Creative Commons use case we specify a fragment that means
what the author _intends_ it to mean when pasted into any document
<danbri> (blogged/syndicated markup is another common scenario)
Ralph: but the subject of the triple changes
Ben: yes, that's why I said "intended to mean"
... in the Use Case document we do talk about fragments, e.g. of
widgets
... how should we acknowledge this?
Manu: in the wiki perhaps?
Mark: at the top of the processing rules section there's something
that talks about _usually_ starting at the root
... we could make this explicit
Ralph: I disagree that we should specify the interpretation of a
parsed fragment
Mark: it's very easy to say "here is the context, begin parsing"
... not saying we need to spell out how to do it
... just that it's possible to answer Micah's point
Ben: I'll try to craft a short non-normative paragraph
<danbri> ([30]NOTE-webarch-extlang#Local articulates something like
this requirement)
[30] http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-webarch-extlang#Local
Mark: the searchmonkey documentation mentions "dataRSS"
... in there you'll find @resource and a statement that "this is
RDFa inside dataRSS"
... I hope Ben's paragraph will be sympathetic to this
<msporny> +1 to draft small paragraph
ACTION: Ben draft a non-normative paragraph on RDFa fragments for
review [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
Ralph: but issue 113 asks for processing rules that apply when there
is no <head> nor <body> and we're _not_ going to do that
Mark: Micah also asks that we "mention the possibility"
... we can mention the possibility without describing normative
behaviour
ISSUE-115
-> [32]issue 115; @content
[32] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/115
Ben: PFWG's concern is that any markup in the element content is
lost when @content is added
<benadida> [33]my response
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0032.html
<benadida> "I like the idea of emphasizing this point, that @content
should be used
<benadida> as a "last resort," and we'll discuss it in the group."
Ralph: the point of @content was to override element content when
it's necessary to do so
... if the author mis-uses this, then, well ...
Ben: but should we change anything in the spec?
Mark: we have discussed having multiple versions; could have two
objects
... we don't have this multiple value approach anywhere else and
shouldn't have it here
<ShaneM> "Note that the use of @content prohibits the inclusion of
rich markup in your content. It is a tool of last resort. If the
inline content of an element is meaningful, then documents should
rely upon that rather than duplicating that content using the
@content attribute."
Mark: this feature also allows a distinction between XMLLiteral and
plain literal
<msporny> +1 for Shane's wording...
Shane: I think we could put guidance such as the above in the
document
Mark: I object to "tool of last resort". There are use cases where
the thing you want in the human-readable part is different from what
you want in the machine-readable part
Ben: the point is that if the value can be rendered on screen, then
don't use @content
... Bob Ducharme used to show examples where everything in the HEAD
was hidden on-screen and I think we want to discourage this practice
<ShaneM> "Note that the use of @content prohibits the inclusion of
rich markup in your content. If the inline content of an element is
what you are trying to convey, then documents should rely upon that
rather than duplicating that content using the @content attribute."
Ralph: I'd be satisfied with Shane's paragraph with the "tool of
last resort" sentence dropped.
<markbirbeck> oops...just remembered that Steven asked me to give
his apologies!
<markbirbeck> Very sorry... :)
<benadida> PROPOSE to resolve ISSUE-115 by adding a short
non-normative paragraph approximately as follows "Note that the use
of @content prohibits the inclusion of rich markup in your content.
If the inline content of an element is what you are trying to
convey, then documents should rely upon that rather than duplicating
that content using the @content attribute."
<Ralph:> +1
<msporny> +1
<markbirbeck> +1
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-115 closed by adding a short non-normative
paragraph approximately as follows "Note that the use of @content
prohibits the inclusion of rich markup in your content. If the
inline content of an element is what you are trying to convey, then
documents should rely upon that rather than duplicating that content
using the @content attribute."
ACTION: Shane update editors' draft with the resolution to issue 115
[recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
ACTION: Ben respond to the commenters on issue 115 [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
ISSUE-104
<benadida> [36]issue 104
[36] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/104
PROPOSE propose to copy the datatype definition from
[37]WD-curie-20080402/#s_schema
[37] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080402/#s_schema
<msporny> +1
RESOLUTION: Copy the CURIE datatype definition from
[38]WD-curie-20080402/#s_schema
[38] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080402/#s_schema
Shane: the XHTML2 WG had a comment that the correct name is
URIorSafeCURIE, not URIorCURIE
Ben: with '[]' it's a SafeCURIE so it's just a wording change
RESOLUTION: change the wording from URIorCURIE to URIorSafeCURIE
<markbirbeck> [39]http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#sec_6.3.1.
[39] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#sec_6.3.1.
Mark: back on @content ...
... should we use inline markup everywhere whenever we can and
minimize use of @content?
... e.g. use something other than META?
Ralph: some of the @content examples have other pedagogical uses and
I wouldn't want to do a wholesale replacement
... and about the "small" changes to the processing rules for
keeping "useless" nodes?
Mark: they're in the CVS and will be in the next editors' draft
ACTION: Ben send announcement of @instanceof change and diffs to
processing rules [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action16]
Ben: I'll take a look at the timeline in the wiki
... the SWD timeline sent on Tuesday should be easy for us to meet
Ralph: regrets for next week
Mark: also regrets for next week
<markbirbeck> There is only one use of @content that should use
inline text, and it's in Appendix A.
<ShaneM> Appendix A? really? Appendix A is the DTD implementation
isn't it?
<markbirbeck> (I mention that to save people doing a scan.)
<ShaneM> oh.... that appendix A. didn't we remove that?
<ShaneM> we voted to remove that appendix. It is no longer in the
source.
<ShaneM> Sorry - fell off the call and can't call back in.
conference is restricted.
<Ralph> yeah, in fact Appendix A should use <h1 about=""
property="dc:title">Internet Applications</h1>
[adjourned]
<Ralph> (thanks, Mark; I'm happy with your conclusion :)
<ShaneM> I have to go anyway. Ben, do you want me to publish right
now, or wait until you have reviewed Mark's mail from last night?
<ShaneM> I have made the changes you requested during the call
already.
<benadida> no publish right now.
<benadida> no, COMMA, publish right now :)_
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Ben draft a non-normative paragraph on RDFa fragments
for review [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
[NEW] ACTION: Ben respond to the commenters on issue 115 [recorded
in [42]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
[NEW] ACTION: Ben send announcement of @instanceof change and diffs
to processing rules [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action16]
[NEW] ACTION: Shane update editors' draft with the resolution to
issue 115 [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL
transform transferred to W3C [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness
[recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
[PENDING] ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative
section [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]
[PENDING] ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki
[recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[45] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01
[46] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09
[47] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13
[48] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05
[49] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
[DONE] ACTION: Ben to respond to ISSUE-109 with (if possible)
pointers to past discussion of @cite [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[DONE] ACTION: Manu to reply PFWG regarding ISSUE-114 [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
[DONE] ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes
section [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
[DONE] ACTION: Michael to add a section to Wiki regarding ISSUE-114
[recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[DONE] ACTION: Michael to reply to Elias and Lee regarding ISSUE-11
[recorded in
[54]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
[50] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
[51] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
[52] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
[53] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
[54] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action13
[DROPPED] ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with
Steven, Ralph, and TAG [recorded in
[55]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
[DROPPED] ACTION: Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl.
[recorded in
[56]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
[55] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08
[56] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07
[End of minutes]
_____________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [57]scribe.perl version 1.133
([58]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/05/01 16:35:43 $
[57] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[58] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2008 16:38:42 UTC