Meeting minutes
<gtw> FYI I will be travelling next week and so unable to scribe. I tried looking at the scribe list to know who would be next in line, but it seems not to have been updated in a few weeks. Maybe Ruben?
<ktk> ok tnx will check it out
<ktk> ah
<ktk> next week is public holiday in many parts anyway
<ktk> I think we will skip that
Scribe: Hartig, Olaf (alternate: Williams, Gregory)
<ktk> Tpt: I don't see you on zoom
<Tpt> Sorry I am not in the zoom yet, I should be able to connect in a few minutes
ktk: review of last week's minutes. Any comments?
<ktk> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes
ktk: confusion in the discussion board
… because there are two numbers
… the issue number itself and some other number
<pfps> minutes look fine to me
<TallTed> +1 approve minutes
ktk: when closing issues in IRC, use the complete URL from the discussion board
<ktk> +1
<gkellogg_> +1
<Timothe> +1
+1
<Dominik_T> +1
<AZ> +1
<pfps> +1 to accepting minutes
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes
Status of "First Public Working Draft" (FPWD)
ktk: any updates on the FPWDs?
AndyS: docs are ready to go, waiting for pchampin
gkellogg_: yes
… but be prepared for last-minute changes
<ktk> https://
ktk: I asked on the discussion board of respec
… whether one can ping specific versions of respec
gkellogg_: yes, we need to be aware of that
… there are important changes in these versions
Use Case Proposals
ktk: proposal was to pfps a chance to talk about the progress on the use cases
pfps: not much progress
… releven group has a use case that they want to work out
… hopefully ready within the next couple of days
ktk: which repo?
<AndyS> w3c/
<AndyS> (was it announced?)
pfps: I added a PR to the main repo to remove the issue about the use case
… want to have a first well-developed use case in that repo before announcing the repo
… would keep the item on the agenda for next week
… in case there are noteworthy changes
AndyS: we have agenda items for outstanding actions and PRs, but none for issues
… we should cover them in the next agenda item
Review of open actions, available at 2
ktk: question to pchampin about TPAC but he is not here
AZ: no remark on my issue
… option: we define partial conformance to RDF 1.2
… option 1: ??
… Didn't get feedback on the options.
… partial would be explicitly defined.
… I would like to get more feedback, on the list or in the issue
AndyS: I would find it easier if there was a draft to provide comments on.
AZ: problem is that there are two issues that are tightly related
… two actions not issues
… issue 19 and issue 23
ktk: talk to Ora and decide on which one to close
TallTed: they can be assigned to both of you
Review of pull requests, available at 3
<AndyS> w3c/
AndyS: I took up the discussion up to a certain point and drafted it in a wiki page
… to have somethign concrete
… in order to give everyone a sense of what the issue/effort is when taking up the issue
… of putting text direction support in RDF
… We need a formal resolution to take up that work
… We may at least do a strawpoll
gkellogg_: Some people have noted that this hits every implementation, every serialization format, etc.
… So, it is a quite consequential change
… It opens up RDF to a large part of the world
… unfortunate that unicode does not provide that
… we came up with an informative mechanism in ... group
<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to note it is a worthwhile thing, but a substantial effort touching (almost?) every doc in our queue
TallTed: Concerned about the amount of work involved in this
… fear that this opens a big can of worms
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask what the resolution is
TallTed: not standing in the way but people who want to pick this up will have a lot of work to do
pfps: agree
AndyS: Respect the concerns
… we work in the context of the wider W3C context
<pfps> my worry is that this is significant work for implementers so it may end up splitting RDF 1.2 classic
AndyS: if we don't pick it up, we have to defend why not
… there are complicated cases, languages with multiple scripts
<gkellogg_> https://
AndyS: in the wiki page I tried to outline the impacts on the different specs (e.g., SPARQL, Turtle)
gkellogg_: there are a couple of examples
<pfps> afer spending a lot of time on this issue I'm still confused as to what exactly has to be done by RDF
gkellogg_: possibility to leverage datatype
… in SPARQL
… wouldn't change surface syntax
… contained to fewer areas of our specs
ktk: I am also much confused
… we should understand what is specific to RDF in this work
AndyS: point at the moment is not to discuss possible solutions but to decide whether we take it up
… in W3C to get to REC we need horizontal review, I18n is one of them
… they have offered to help
ktk: proposal or strawpoll?
<ktk> draft proposal: Standardize text direction for RDF 1.2 (and related specs)
<gkellogg_> rdf-concepts#9
<ghurlbot> Issue 9 text direction (gkellogg) i18n-tracker, needs discussion, spec:substantive
<ktk> Accept RDF-Concepts issue #9: text direction
<ghurlbot> Issue 9 ambiguity of canonical N-Triples (pchampin) complete
<ktk> PROPOSAL: Accept RDF-Concepts issue "text direction" w3c/
<gkellogg_> +1
<ktk> +1
<Dominik_T> +1
<AndyS> +1
<gtw> +1
<Timothe> +1
<TallTed> +0.5
+0
<pfps> -0 as this still appears to commit the wg to produce something
<AZ> +0
<Tpt> +1
ktk: Do we need majority?
RESOLUTION: Accept RDF-Concepts issue "text direction" w3c/
TallTed: If there is no -1 and a substantial number of +1 then it is accepted
Andys: I would find it easier to have an online discussion about it.
Open PRs https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4/
ktk: let's look at the PRs now
Dominik_T: I would like to change the HTML to be better visible in mobile phones and small devices
… I will change the CSS a bit
… in the PR
… will do that tomorrow
pfps: changes to CSS can do a lot of things
… thse PRs causes a lot of discussion / waste of time
… would have been better as an issue for the group to discuss rather than lots of PRs
TallTed: I agree, should better be an issue first and then tested as a PR on one repo
… instead of PRs in all repos at the same time
pfps: I don't know the syntax of CSS to understand whether the change is substantial
gkellogg_: regarding the markup problem, I was looking at the results of the build which had issues
… regarding making many PRs about CSS for lots of repos, it is a problem that the discussion is all over the place now and that tables are used in different ways in the different specs
… generally, this is about accessibility, which we may have to look at
… accessibility issues are often uncovered during the wider reviewer
AndyS: this PR (for SPARQL) I would like to be merged
… because long-standing PRs are difficult to work on
… but I request to avoid breaks within words
pfps: I don't want this PR merged in the smenatics doc
… because it breaks within words
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to mention that the last version I saw made things worse in my opinion
TallTed: There is a requested change in this PR for the semantics doc
… 'break-word' has been deprecated
… If you apply my change request, pfps' issue about the breaking of words will be resolved
ktk: can you apply that?
Dominik_T: yes
ktk: only apply it to the semantics doc first
pfps: changes to common things like CSS need to be done very carefully
<AndyS> The most demanding SPARQL effect is the grammar in query. We can treat it specially.
<TallTed> +1 fix rdf-semantics#30, and upon approval, replicate to the other CSS PRs
<ghurlbot> Pull Request 30 improve display on mobile phones (domel) needs discussion
ktk: propose to apply it only to the semantics doc first
next meeting
ktk: Thursday next week is a public holiday in Europe
AndyS: May 18?
ktk: yes
<AZ> 18th of May is holiday in France
AndyS: not a public holiday in the UK
TallTed: yes on the 18th, not 25th
<pfps> I will be travelling on the 18th
gtw: not here next week
<gkellogg_> I'm here on the 18th, not on the 25th
Timothe: I will be here
AZ: not here
Dominik_T: on holiday next week
ktk: propose to skip next week
<TallTed> regrets for me 2023-05-25
ktk: and those who won't be here on the 25th, please log your regrets in the IRC