See also: IRC log, previous 2008-07-31
all open actions still pending
Michael: we have one more implementation than
we need to meet our CR exit criteria
... Fabien reported the results of his XSLT implementation so I'll include
his results
<mhausenblas> Fabiens proposal
Ralph: what about Fabien's note of a bug in the manifest for 52 & 53?
<mhausenblas> Freezed RDFa TC for IR
Michael: I wonder if Fabien has an old version
of the manifest, as the other implementations pass
... nope, seems to be the same in the manifest
... I'll have to check this with Manu
<mhausenblas> reference negative TC
Michael: compare with test 86
Ralph: looking at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#sec_6.1.1.
... 6.1.1.5.
<mhausenblas> approval of TC 52 and 53
Ralph: consider rule 4 in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#sec_5.5.
Michael: as we have no @about, the subject becomes the value of @resource
Ralph: so the comment in the Purpose column of Section 3 of the implementation report is wrong for tests 52 and 53
ACTION: Michael check tests 52 and 53 with Manu [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/07-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
Ralph: the worrisome thing is that Fabien believes the test should be a negative test, in contradiction to the other 5 reported implementations. Perhaps he is believing the incorrect text in the Purpose column, but if he thinks there are words in the spec that say the opposite we should track this down
Michael: is section 4 sufficient, or does it need to be longer?
Ralph: the implementation report is only to
show that we have completed our CR requirements
... so fine to add more if we know but OK to point to the Wiki
Michael: what else do we need for WG review?
Ralph: we need a final editor's draft and to
include the XSLT implementation in the report
... since there has been so much discussion of using GRDDL for RDFa, to omit
the XSLT implementation would raise many questions
Michael: do the WGs need to review the implementation report?
Ralph: were we committed to publishing it as a Group Note?
<mhausenblas> 5-Aug SWD minutes
Ralph: I don't believe that the WGs intend to
publish the Implementation Report as a TR
... so it just stays in its current form and you can continually improve it
as comments arrive
Steven: alternating between the Implementation
Report and the Implementation Wiki, it's hard to find the similarities
... perhaps I'll try to update the Wiki
... Micah Dubinko reported a new implementation this week
Michael: once Manu updates the test harness to point to a new implementation I just need to regenerate the EARL
Steven: the terminology in the Wiki is
different from the terminology in the Implementation Report
... one talks about 'client side' and the other talks about 'plug-ins'
Michael: the audiences are different
Steven: how shall we report editorial errors in the IR?
Michael: wait 1 or 2 days while I work in Ben's client-side wording and tests 52 and 53 then I'll send a call for comments
[End of minutes]