text: Chatlog 2013-02-28
  From RDFa Working Group Wiki
  See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
  14:41:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 14:41:51 <RRSAgent> logging to 14:41:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:41:53 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa 14:41:55 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332 14:41:55 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 19 minutes 14:41:56 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference 14:41:56 <trackbot> Date: 28 February 2013 15:00:49 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 15:00:56 <Zakim> +??P5 15:01:13 <Zakim> +scor 15:01:23 <manu> zakim, I am ??P5 15:01:23 <Zakim> +manu; got it 15:01:40 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdfa 15:02:09 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdfa 15:02:32 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 15:02:32 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 15:02:33 <Zakim> +Ivan 15:02:35 <Zakim> +??P12 15:02:39 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P12 15:02:39 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it 15:03:27 <Zakim> +??P14 15:03:31 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P14 15:03:31 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it 15:04:25 <Steven> Steven has joined #rdfa 15:04:53 <Zakim> +??P20 15:05:00 <Steven> zakim, I am ? 15:05:00 <Zakim> +Steven; got it 15:05:09 <Steven> zakim, who is here? 15:05:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu, scor, niklasl, Ivan, gkellogg, Steven 15:05:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see Steven, niklasl, gkellogg, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, TallTed, nonge_, manu1, manu, trackbot 15:06:46 <manu> Agenda: 15:07:20 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa 15:07:45 <ivan> q+ 15:07:49 <manu> scribenick: manu 15:07:57 <manu> manu: Any changes to the agenda? 15:08:17 <manu> ivan: I think we should discuss admin things first, it's not impossible for us to go to a 2nd LC. 15:08:41 <manu> ivan: Let's look at HTML5 and rdf:HTML stability first. 15:08:43 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa 15:08:52 <Zakim> +ShaneM 15:08:52 <manu> Topic: HTML5 datetime stability 15:09:23 <manu> manu: Ivan spoke with Phillipe and Mike Smith(tm) on this. 15:09:47 <manu> ivan: We have to have a clear list of what kind of references we have to the HTML5 document, for each of those, we have to prove that what we're using is stable. 15:10:13 <manu> ivan: We have datetime and rdf:HTML - unfortunately, the rules are more stringent than I thought. We have to prove for each of them the stability. 15:10:43 <niklasl> q+ to ask about other HTML5-dependent specs going to REC before HTML5 15:11:03 <manu> ivan: Let's separate the HTML5 dependencies and the rdf:HTML ones. The HTML5 dependencies are explicitly called out at W3C. 15:11:07 <manu> ack ivan 15:11:55 <manu> ivan: We have to have a clear list of all dependencies and whether they are stable for HTML5. From the top of my head, this is the <time> element and the datetime attribute. 15:12:11 <manu> gkellogg: The use of meta and link in the body are also of concern, right? 15:12:17 <manu> ivan: No, those have been around for a long time. 15:12:29 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss meta and llink 15:13:24 <Steven> q+ 15:14:32 <manu> ivan: What about the HTML5 parsing algorithm? 15:14:41 <manu> manu: It's as stable as it's going to be, afaik. 15:15:09 <manu> ivan: I asked Mike if time and datetime was sufficiently stable, he said more-or-less, yes it is. 15:15:15 <ivan> 15:16:03 <manu> ivan: They've changed the capitalization of the datetime attribute, so we'll have to update the spec. 15:19:07 <manu> Discussion about the stability of the HTML5 spec. 15:19:16 <gkellogg> q? 15:19:17 <Steven> q- 15:19:51 <manu> niklasl: Quick first question, do we have a reference to any other specs that are dependent on HTML5 that will go to REC before it. 15:20:11 <manu> ivan: One of the API specs, maybe? Ping Philippe again to send you a reference of the document what has to be done for HTML5. 15:20:35 <manu> ACTION: Manu to contact Philippe to ask about things that need to be done for dependencies on HTML5. 15:20:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - Contact Philippe to ask about things that need to be done for dependencies on HTML5. [on Manu Sporny - due 2013-03-07]. 15:20:59 <niklasl> I don't get the renaming to dateTime; according to this, it is all-lowercase in HTML4: 15:21:02 <manu> ivan: I think we're fine from a TIME element and datetime attribute perspective. 15:21:30 <manu> ivan: We should ask Thomas and Ralph if they think we're okay on this before going to Transition Request. 15:21:36 <manu> ivan: That's for HTML5. 15:21:48 <manu> ack niklasl 15:21:48 <Zakim> niklasl, you wanted to ask about other HTML5-dependent specs going to REC before HTML5 15:22:10 <manu> niklasl: Is there any chance to go to REC with HTML4+RDFa? 15:22:38 <niklasl> .. or just HTML 15:22:41 <manu> ivan: There is always the possibility that we take out the time/datetime element - but we do HTML5+RDFa, that would be fine. so if this is an issue, we can remove the feature. 15:23:23 <manu> niklasl: What is the chance for us to do a specific HTML5 spec after that to add datetime? 15:23:32 <manu> ivan: No, we shouldnt' do HTML4+RDFa - that would be bad... 15:23:58 <manu> niklasl: If we want to have datetime support, and if somebody doesn't think it's possible, then could we put a REC out after that? 15:24:05 <manu> ivan: That would be a new charter, new group, etc. 15:24:09 <manu> ack ShaneM 15:24:09 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss meta and llink 15:24:39 <manu> ShaneM: You mentioned meta and link earlier, those have been around for a while, that's true, but prior to HTML5 and in all legacy user agents, elements that are in the body are moved into the head silently. 15:25:27 <manu> ivan: There is a good point there, when we make the list, this should be listed there as well - maybe a similar statement from Mike on browsers not moving it would be good to have. 15:25:46 <manu> ivan: That has to be explicitly mentioned. 15:26:06 <manu> niklasl: What about the dateTime naming? 15:27:04 <manu> manu: We do have to change the capitalization now. 15:28:12 <manu> niklasl: I don't get the reasoning for the naming... 15:28:41 <manu> ivan: Well, it's outside of this groups control. 15:28:51 <Zakim> -scor 15:28:58 <manu> Topic: rdf:HTML dependency 15:30:14 <manu> ivan: So, for HTML5, there is a special rule... there isn't one for RDF Concepts. We can only refer to rdf:HTML informatively - it's an optional feature, ugly but do-able. 15:31:54 <ivan> 15:32:34 <manu> ivan: Thomas and I discussed this today, OWL2 wanted to use XSD 1.1 - but XSD 1.1 was CR (not REC) 15:32:55 <manu> ivan: OWL2 refers to XSD 1.1 by saying that you should refer to the CR on it. 15:33:22 <manu>. 15:33:30 <manu> We suggest that for now developers and users follow the XSD 1.1 Candidate Recommendation. Based on discussions between the Schema and OWL Working Groups, we do not expect any implementation changes will be necessary as XSD 1.1 advances to Recommendation. 15:40:17 <manu> Discussion about how to avoid a 2nd Last Call or a 3rd Last Call. 15:41:12 <ShaneM> q+ to propose rdfa:html 15:41:23 <manu> gkellogg: Could we take over the definition of rdf:HTML? 15:41:38 <manu> shanem: Why not put it in the RDF namespace? let's just do rdfa:html. 15:42:26 <niklasl> .. or just :html 15:42:53 <niklasl> .. which may make danbri more happy (since he found rdf:HTML harder to sell IIRC) 15:43:19 <manu> manu: Can't we just make this optional and make rdf:HTML non-normative? 15:44:03 <manu> ivan: That might allow us to go forward, let's pass it by Ralph and Thomas to make sure. 15:44:36 <manu> ivan: The OWL2 approach that was there, that worked with XSD CR - we could do exactly the same, but with that we have to wait for concepts to be in CR, and that's several weeks. 15:45:55 <Steven> q+ 15:45:59 <manu> ack shanem 15:45:59 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to propose rdfa:html 15:46:14 <ShaneM> ack shanem 15:46:20 <manu> Steven: The agreement to end the exclusion period early, does that block us? 15:46:55 <Steven> 15:47:06 <manu> ivan: We need to have 2-3 more members who have not signed the exclusion period. We need OpenLink and DFKI to sign off on it. 15:47:42 <manu> ivan: We don't need IEs to sign off on it. I sent an e-mail to OpenLink and DFKI, maybe Manu will have to call Ted and I'll call the guy at DFKI. 15:47:55 <Steven> ack me 15:48:12 <manu> Topic: Stefan Schumacher's LC Comment 15:48:16 <manu> 15:49:07 <manu> Group agrees to let the editor deal with the issue since it's an editorial issue. 15:49:16 <manu> Topic: Mike Smith(tm)'s Complaint 15:49:22 <manu> 15:49:49 <manu> manu: Someone had put this markup in the body <link rel="stylesheet" href="foo.css" /> 15:50:37 <manu> manu: Mike has complained that RDFa allows the above in the body of the document and that you can't make a mistake like that via Microdata because it required itemprop to be valid in the body. 15:51:03 <niklasl> q+ 15:51:40 <manu> ack niklasl 15:52:00 <ShaneM> q+ to ask why tool authors who work for us get to wag the dog here 15:52:47 <manu> niklasl: When I saw this, I cursed because I expected this subconsciously - the rule for @itemprop for using link and meta in body, it's a coherent design. 15:52:52 <ivan> q+ 15:53:11 <manu> shanem: I think that the tool is broken. 15:53:13 <manu> ack shanem 15:53:13 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask why tool authors who work for us get to wag the dog here 15:54:47 <manu> shanem: A warning could be generated. 15:55:28 <manu> ivan: What terms do we allow in HTML5+RDFa 1.1? 15:55:34 <manu> manu: I don't think we allow any? 15:58:47 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #rdfa 15:58:47 <manu> manu: If the content of @rel in LINK in BODY contains anything other than 'describedby', 'license', and 'role' or a value with a colon in it, and @vocab isn't active, then you can kick out an error. 16:04:57 <manu> PROPOSAL: Restrict the link and meta elements in HTML5+RDFa 1.1 when used in the body to require the usage of @property to be valid. 16:04:57 <ShaneM> +1 16:04:59 <Steven> +1 16:05:07 <manu> manu: +1 16:05:10 <ivan> +1 16:05:10 <gkellogg> +1 16:05:14 <niklasl> +1 16:05:17 <Zakim> -ShaneM 16:05:24 <manu> RESOLVED: Restrict the link and meta elements in HTML5+RDFa 1.1 when used in the body to require the usage of @property to be valid. 16:06:16 <Zakim> -Ivan 16:06:32 <manu> Topic: Status of Implementations 16:06:48 <manu> gkellogg: Processor conformance was updated earlier this month. We have two inter-operable implementations. 16:06:59 <manu> gkellogg: As far as doing a transition, we're okay. 16:07:12 <manu> niklasl: I'm close to being done with the pattern stuff. 16:07:28 <manu> gkellogg: Semargl probably passes more than they did before. Never got feedback from Alex Milowski on this. 16:07:48 <manu> Action: Manu to ping Alex Milowski about doing another EARL report. 16:07:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Ping Alex Milowski about doing another EARL report. [on Manu Sporny - due 2013-03-07]. 16:07:59 <manu> niklasl: I might want to submit my CoffeeScript implementation. 16:08:10 <manu> niklasl: Clojure implementation now works in the browser. 16:08:26 <manu> gkellogg: You can update that in the DOAP profile, try updating that. 16:08:32 <manu> niklasl: It works in JVM and browsers. 16:09:04 <gkellogg> 16:10:14 <manu> ACTION: Gregg to update EARL reports at the end of March 2013. 16:10:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-121 - Update EARL reports at the end of March 2013. [on Gregg Kellogg - due 2013-03-07]. 16:13:06 <Zakim> -Steven 16:13:08 <Zakim> -manu 16:13:09 <Zakim> -gkellogg 16:13:11 <Zakim> -niklasl 16:13:11 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended 16:13:11 <Zakim> Attendees were scor, manu, Ivan, niklasl, gkellogg, Steven, ShaneM 16:14:21 <manu> rrsagent, make logs public 16:14:49 <niklasl> to be clear, our restriction on meta and link above is actually just holding back a bit in our extension of HTML5 to allow it there at all. # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000167