Semantic Web Interest Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-10-29

00:00:17 <JibberJim> vocab for the region?

00:00:21 <JimH_> will also send the marked up image directly to our RDF web site if you have write permissions

00:00:38 <JibberJim> Is the RDF XMP embedded inside then?

00:01:09 <JimH_> jim - you create the region using a drawing tool, it creates an RDF description of the image overlay (in SVG) and notes the depiction v. depicted

00:01:32 * danbri knows too many JimHs in irc.freenode.net

00:01:40 <JimH_> between what you markup and the region -- doesn't embed the RDF XMP, creates a separate file of OWL

00:01:57 * JimH_ is there another one?

00:02:16 <danbri> in #mobitopia sometimes

00:02:17 * JimH_ I've had JimH as nick for a while now, would hate to change...

00:02:25 <danbri> and #foaf (unless that's always you)

00:02:27 <danbri> hard to tell ;)

00:02:40 <danbri> are you registered w/ nickserv?

00:02:42 <JimH_> foaf not me (and def not mobitopia, whatever that is) - foo

00:02:53 <sbp> JimH is registered to the other Jim—JimMob

00:03:00 <JimH_> I thought I was - but it's been acting weird lately...

00:03:05 <JimH_> this explains it

00:03:06 <danbri> we should introduce you

00:03:11 <JimH_> guess I need a new nick - foo

00:03:15 <sbp> they've already been introduced

00:03:16 <JimH_> JimH_ is now known as JHendler

00:03:27 <danbri> what is jimmob's full name?

00:03:34 <JHendler> JHendler is now known as DrH

00:03:49 <sbp> hmm. hang on

00:04:10 <DrH> hmm "Notice -- Too many nick changes; wait 20 seconds before trying again"

00:04:12 <danbri> nah, jhendler better. DrH sounds like something you might buy at CVS.

00:04:15 <DrH> DrH is now known as MooseMan

00:04:21 <sbp> Jim Hughes

00:04:28 <JibberJim> Jim Hughes, and the semweb that I can see actually knows lots more about him :-)

00:04:30 <sbp> FOAF: http://www.feetup.org/jimfoaf.rdf

00:04:30 <dc_rdfig> Label FOAF not found.

00:04:39 <MooseMan> MooseMan is now known as JahBot

00:04:40 <sbp> quiet, chumpy

00:04:43 <danbri> btw

00:04:45 <danbri> <danbri> .paths Jim Hendler, Frank Sinatra

00:04:45 <danbri> <whwhwhwh> Jim Hendler to Frank Sinatra via Dan Connolly, Tim Berners-Lee, Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy

00:04:45 <danbri> <whwhwhwh> in 5 steps

00:04:45 <danbri> <whwhwhwh> Jim Hendler to Frank Sinatra via Eric Miller, Dan Connolly, Tim Berners-Lee, Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy

00:04:45 <danbri> <whwhwhwh> in 6 steps

00:04:47 <danbri> <whwhwhwh> see http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/discovery/2002/02/paths/byname.jsp?name=Jim+Hendler&name2=Frank+Sinatra

00:04:50 <danbri> from #foaf

00:04:55 * sbp suggested JimOWL in #foaf

00:05:09 <danbri> talk about typecasting! :/

00:05:12 <sbp> yeah

00:05:15 <JahBot> hmmm, JimOWL not too bad.

00:05:18 <danbri> there must be life after OWL

00:05:21 <JahBot> JahBot is now known as timbl

00:05:27 <sbp> it'd be like if I were SeanN3. don't think I could cope with that

00:05:28 <sbp> heh, heh

00:05:28 <timbl> nah, that's probably been taken

00:05:39 <timbl> timbl is now known as jimbl

00:05:44 <sbp> heh

00:05:45 <danbri> OWL-rules, OWL-S, OWL-2.0 OWL-Mobile, OWL-Tiny, ...

00:05:45 <jimbl> nah, not that either

00:06:06 <jimbl> jimbl is now known as JHendler

00:06:08 <danbri> danbri is now known as jimbri

00:06:16 <sbp> _owlsameAsJimH

00:06:37 <sbp> (or whatever that property's called today)

00:06:56 <sbp> sbp is now known as notajim

00:06:57 <JHendler> OWL names - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jul/0300.html

00:06:59 * jimbri just seen primaryTopic of http://mena.typepad.com/dollarshort/2003/08/spellbound.html

00:07:10 <JHendler>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jul/0300.html

00:07:10 <dc_rdfig> A: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jul/0300.html from JHendler

00:07:19 <jimbri> jimbri is now known as danbri

00:07:20 <notajim> hooray for loading links in the background... good for when swamped

00:07:21 <JHendler> A:| Some other OWL variants

00:07:21 <dc_rdfig> Titled item A.

00:07:39 <danbri> Jim, I'm an OWL question for you.

00:07:49 <notajim> heh. I read BOWL as bowel

00:07:51 <notajim> notajim is now known as sbp

00:07:54 <JHendler> ok - will try, but only got a minut

00:08:04 <JibberJim> Path JimH to JimH is me then libby, so pretty close really.

00:08:11 <danbri> Is it possible to populate a class using OWL rules such that you get all the docs whose URI stems to a certain string?

00:08:24 <danbri> I can imagine it in N3, using log:uri and log:substring or somesuch.

00:08:36 <danbri> I had assumed do-able in OWL, but now worry it requires variables.

00:08:43 <sbp> log:uri is a level-breaker

00:08:51 <sbp> OWL doesn't have anything *scary* in it, Dan! :-)

00:09:01 <danbri> ie. the class is populated with X's whose log:uri Y has a foo:substring of ...

00:09:21 <danbri> this is to finish off th migration of PICS labelling technology to an RDF-based platform.

00:09:24 <sbp> sounds like aboutEachPrefix

00:09:30 <danbri> sbp, exactly.

00:09:34 <danbri> hence the level breakeer.

00:09:50 <JHendler> danbri - not sure, seems like one should be able to, but I don't see how without thinking hard -- suspect you would need variables or else you'd need a way to do user defined datatypes which we had to postpone

00:09:57 <JHendler> since xsd doesn't give nice URIs

00:10:06 <JibberJim> Can I get some example OWL/SVG for the PhotoStuff JHendler?

00:10:23 <danbri> it is generally considered a bit grubby to generalise about things based on textual characteristics of their names. But PICS wants that. And to say that all things matching http://playboy.com/images/ are rude is useful to that community.

00:10:37 <JHendler> lemme see JJim

00:10:37 * danbri stretches the word 'community' beyond its plausible limits

00:11:24 <sbp> { ?x log:uri [ string:startsWith "http://example.org/" ] } => { ?x a :DanBriClass } . in N3

00:11:26 <JHendler> JibberJim - can you see http://owl.mindswap.org/2003/submit-rdf/386.rdf

00:11:35 <JHendler> without a password?

00:11:43 <danbri> <danbri> .pic Jim Hendler

00:11:43 <danbri> <whwhwhwh> Jim Hendler http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2002/04/07/001775.JPG

00:11:43 <danbri> <whwhwhwh> Jim Hendler http://photos.heddley.com/albums/www2002/hawaii_007.sized.jpg

00:11:45 <JibberJim> Yes, thanks

00:11:54 <danbri> whwhwh should hang out here too.

00:12:37 <danbri> OK, we have 2-3 namespaces doing same thing. convergence time.

00:12:44 <danbri> but first, sleep.

00:12:52 <JHendler> that's a weird picture -- makes me look bald - everyone knows I have a full head of hair.. just look at the images google finds with a "hendler" image search :->

00:13:11 <danbri> you could correct that with an SVG overlay

00:13:48 <JibberJim> Nor sure I like the parseType literal - otherwise pretty similar to the ongoing work http://jibbering.com/discussion/image.1 / http://esw.w3.org/topic/ImageDescription

00:14:06 <JHendler> jibberjim - if you go to the provenance page I chumped before (in J: from yesterday) you can see the RDF for all our images -- any of the "program Data" files should be image markup

00:14:20 <JHendler> I gotta run - ciao.

00:14:32 <JibberJim> Who do we bug to come to the next scheduled topic chat?

01:17:01 <earle> earle is now known as grault

04:54:44 <D[a]vey> D[a]vey is now known as Davey

05:57:26 <D[a]vey> D[a]vey is now known as Davey

08:40:23 <mdupont> mdupont is now known as md-work

09:11:56 <arnarl> hi

10:09:32 <Dorward> What content type should RDF be served as? application/xml+rdf?

10:10:18 <Davey> rdf+xml

10:10:34 <Davey> +xml is always last, just like application/xhtml+xml :)

10:10:34 <Dorward> Thanks

10:10:42 <Dorward> Ah - I always get them backwards :)

10:11:02 <Davey> me too, mostly

10:11:23 <ericP> it's easy to remember, you just think of

10:11:25 <ericP> well,

10:11:28 <ericP> um

10:11:32 <ericP> it's hard to remember

10:11:53 <Dorward> heh

10:13:09 * Dorward wonders why his mod_rewrite voodoo isn't working

10:13:58 <Dorward> http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/htaccess.txt - the penultimate block.

10:13:59 <dc_rdfig> B: http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/htaccess.txt from Dorward

10:14:10 * Dorward curses as he forgot the bot again

10:16:44 <Dorward> B:Currently non-functioning mod_rewrite voodoo to let user agents that understand XML but not RDF present a useful parse tree.

10:16:45 <dc_rdfig> Added comment B1.

10:16:59 <Dorward> B:Any help getting it to actually work would be welcome :)

10:16:59 <dc_rdfig> Added comment B2.

10:17:10 <dajobe> you can do B:=http://dorward.me.uk/ to change the url

10:17:35 <Dorward> dajobe: I could - but I don't have anything better to put in its place.

10:17:42 <Dorward> ... yet

10:18:07 <dajobe> don't forget this chump rss feed is syndicated and read by millions... err, others

10:18:30 <Dorward> I know. I'm going to whip up a more useful permentant URI

10:19:03 * dajobe reminds people of http://journal.dajobe.org/journal/2003/07/semblogs/ just FYI

10:27:12 <Dorward> B:=http://dorward.me.uk/xml/rdf-rewrite/

10:27:12 <dc_rdfig> Replaced URL of B.

10:36:39 <dajobe> hi nick

10:42:06 <nmg_> hi dave

10:42:51 * nmg_ appears to have a duplicate :/

10:43:55 <dajobe> if nmg is registered, you can use the ghost command with nickserv to kill it

10:44:59 <nmg_> I don't think that I have registered it...

10:45:13 <dajobe> you better do, or someone ahem, might get there before you

10:45:16 <nmg_> btw, I've taken the liberty of syndicating your blog on livejournal

10:45:19 * nmg_ grins

10:45:23 <dajobe> bloody liberty !

10:45:32 <dajobe> how much do they pay me for that? :)

10:45:40 <CaptSolo> hi dajobe :)

10:45:45 <nmg_> I think that you get to pay me for the increased readership ;)

10:45:57 * dajobe isn't writing it for readership

10:45:59 <nmg_> all one of me

10:47:04 <dajobe> very smallprint, hardly readable "LiveJournal.com makes no claim to the content supplied through this journal account. Articles are retrieved via a public feed supplied by the site for this purpose."

10:48:23 * dajobe snigers at nmg's LJ discoveries

10:48:39 <dajobe> a friend of mine has both his parents reading his blog items

10:48:41 <dajobe> now *that* is scary

10:49:03 * nmg_ grins

10:49:59 <nmg_> as you said, "I'm not writing it for readership" (which goes doubly for LJs)

10:53:53 <dajobe> yeah, it's worked out as a bookmarks+what am I doing, reading site

10:54:57 <nmg_> I had originally intended to do something similar, but I am essentially lazy, and the effort of duplicating my (paper) logbook online was too much

10:55:43 <dajobe> this was duplicating (somewhat) my earlier log done by typing into my psion5, which expired

10:56:41 <nmg_> I've not yet owned a palmtop, so that's never been an option

10:56:55 * dajobe bbl, meeting

10:57:01 * nmg_ has dangerously luddite tendencies

11:08:55 <JimJibber> JimJibber is now known as JibberJim

11:14:16 <danbri>http://www.semaview.com/resources/semweb.html

11:14:16 <dc_rdfig> C: http://www.semaview.com/resources/semweb.html from danbri

11:14:31 <danbri> C:|Bootstrapping the Semantic Web with "Intelligent" Calendar web pages, by Semaview Inc.

11:14:31 <dc_rdfig> Titled item C.

11:17:54 <danbri> C:See [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-calendar/2003Oct/0013.html|message] from [http://csukornyk.sherpasuite.com/homepage.php|Chris Sukornyk] on www-rdf-calendar.

11:17:54 <dc_rdfig> Added comment C1.

13:16:40 <eaon> eaon is now known as eaon|bbl

14:47:28 <eaon|bbl> eaon|bbl is now known as eaon

15:01:58 <eaon> eaon is now known as eaon|out

15:27:39 <arnarl> arnarl is now known as arnarl|away

15:30:34 <daviddorward_> daviddorward_ is now known as Dorward

15:46:33 <D[a]vey> D[a]vey is now known as Davey|LH

15:53:42 <Dorward> hmmm... it looks like I can access the Mac Address Book via Java... that would make a handy way to write a photo annotation tool. Pick the people in it right out of the address book.

16:09:04 <JimJibber> JimJibber is now known as JibberJim

16:25:22 <Davey> Davey is now known as D[a]vey

16:25:44 <DanC> mac accressbook via java... Dorward, if you'd leave cookie crumbs for the rest of us to follow, I'd apprecaite it.

16:25:52 <DanC> addressbook even

16:27:36 <Dorward> DanC: If I find anything useful I'll document my progress.. unfortunatly I haven't found anything that can do it except Objective-C at the moment.

16:28:14 <Dorward> Any good RDF libraries for Objective-C? :)

16:28:43 <danbri> you can call out to Java easy enough...

16:29:00 <monkeyiq> redland should be usable from obj-c ?

16:29:32 <Dorward> monkeyiq: It should? I might look in to that if I dead end with the Java approach.

16:29:58 <monkeyiq> Dorward: well, assuming that using a C API is easy in obj-c

16:30:44 <Dorward> monkeyiq: I would say that that is a reasonable assumption.... but I've been burned by assmptions before :)

16:31:19 <monkeyiq> :)

16:32:59 <DanC> I'm curious about pyobjc and jython... but not curious enough to start doing real development on the mac... I'm still nervous about investing in proprietary technology.

16:36:05 <arnarl|away> arnarl|away is now known as arnarl

16:44:12 <Wack> dorward, your posted url (http://dorward.me.uk/xml/rdf-rewrite/) isnt valid xml

16:44:31 <Wack> mozilla refuses to display it (at least, my firebird doesnt)

16:44:58 <Wack> XML Parsing Error: mismatched tag. Expected: </body>.

16:45:05 <Wack> Location: http://dorward.me.uk/xml/rdf-rewrite/ Line Number 41, Column 3:

16:45:12 <Wack> </div></body></html>

16:45:13 <Wack> --^

16:45:21 <Dorward> Wack: Try now

16:45:28 <Wack> ok, works :]

16:45:51 <Wack> do you sniff out browsers that dont support xhtml btw?

16:46:00 <Wack> and send the xhtml as text/html ?

16:46:24 <Dorward> Wack: text/html by default, application/xhtml+xml if the accept line says yes.

16:47:19 * DanC discovers RuleML '03 workshop http://comas.soi.city.ac.uk/conference/ruleml/ ... wonders if anybody knows what happened there

16:47:22 <Wack> ah hmm, do you use a xhtml capable browser yourself?

16:48:32 <Dorward> Wack: Yes

16:49:25 <Dorward> Safari can handle valid XHTML without any trouble, but it seems to have tag soup mode for XHTML which isn't well formed. It gets the short tests correct here: http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/xhtml/

16:49:33 <Dorward> (and at home I use Mozilla)

16:49:38 <Wack> ah hmm, almost looked like a textbook example from Hixie's 'Sending xhtml as text/html is considered harmful' ;)

16:50:16 <Dorward> Wack: :) Very much so... I don't normally make that mistake - see the comment at the top of the document :)

16:50:17 <Wack> ah well, it is a textbook example then :/, same as IE

16:50:42 <Dorward> Noooo - IE just goes XHTML? What's that? Want to download it? :)

16:51:04 <Wack> IE displays it as an xml tree

16:51:09 <Wack>http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

16:51:10 <dc_rdfig> D: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml from Wack

16:51:13 <nmg> DanC: I noticed that yesterday - I don't recognise many of the authors on the programme at a first glance

16:51:17 <Wack> D:|Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful

16:51:17 <dc_rdfig> Titled item D.

16:51:30 <nmg> ah, good old hixie...

16:51:31 <Dorward> Wack: Really? It didn't do that last time I checked it. It does with application/xml, but not for application/xhtml+xml

16:52:14 <nmg> only Ian could write a diatribe on the evils of text/xhtml in a file of type text/plain...

16:52:40 <nmg> sorry, text/html

16:52:57 <Dorward> application/xhtml+xml I think you mean :)

16:53:54 <nmg> ideally, yes. Ian's specific rant is about the use of text/html

16:54:17 <Dorward> Oh - ah. <shakes head>

16:57:47 <Wack> dorward: do you currently host any rdf with that rewrite rule in place?

16:58:13 <Dorward> Wack: http://dorward.me.uk/foaf.rdf

16:58:22 <DanC> D:I haven't read this, but I highly recommend sending XHTML as text/html. I haven't seen much harm.

16:58:22 <dc_rdfig> Added comment D1.

17:00:04 <Dorward> DanC: Oh the joy of commenting on stuff you haven't read! Nutshell: Not testing XHTML with a parser that ensures XML is well formed tends to lead to errors which prevent the page from rendering in good browsers when sent with the correct content type

17:00:05 <Wack> seems to work dorward (mozilla displays it as an xml tree ('application/xml'), whereas wget gets type 'application/rdf+xml'

17:00:18 <nmg> hmmm. nice rewrite rule.

17:00:24 <Dorward> Wack: If all my problems were due to my cache, I'll be unhappy.

17:00:45 * nmg keeps meaning to sit down and write a XUL triple displaying add-on for Moz

17:01:04 * Dorward becomes unhappy

17:01:08 <Dorward> But it works

17:01:10 <DanC> D:I don't recommend not testing with a parser that ensures well-formededness. I recommend nxml-mode and Amaya.

17:01:11 <nmg> alas, I keep getting bogged down in the details of registering new content-type handlers (and so on)

17:01:12 * Dorward becomes happy again

17:01:12 <dc_rdfig> Added comment D2.

17:01:34 * JibberJim considers reminding DanC that the RFC he wrote doesn't allow sending of XHTML 1.1 as text/html

17:01:42 <DanC> no?

17:02:04 <DanC> oh... XHTML 1.1... I haven't looked at that. XHTML 1.0 works for me.

17:02:06 <Wack> B: Perhaps adding a 'Vary: Content-Type' headers solves caching problems?

17:02:07 <dc_rdfig> Added comment B3.

17:02:32 <DanC> actually, I don't bother with <!DOCTYPE>s. I just write <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">... .

17:03:02 <Dorward> DanC: nXML-mode works on namespaces? Excellent - I can cross that of my list of things to check

17:03:25 <Wack> I bother with doctypes now that I have found out internet explorer goes into 'standards complaince' mode when rendering css if the html has a full doctype declaration

17:03:49 <Dorward> ... unless you have an XML prolog :)

17:03:51 <Wack> at least it's box sizing is compliant now

17:04:22 <Wack> yes, but ie doesnt support xhtml, so you dont need that anyway ;)

17:04:45 <Dorward> Wack: yes - but other user agents do support xhtml :)

17:05:14 <Wack> unfortunately, that a rather small minority :/

17:10:33 <Wack>http://rx4rdf.liminalzone.org/

17:10:33 <dc_rdfig> E: http://rx4rdf.liminalzone.org/ from Wack

17:10:51 <Wack> E:|Rx4RDF

17:10:51 <dc_rdfig> Titled item E.

17:10:59 <Wack> E:"Rx4RDF shields developers from the complexity of RDF by enabling you to use familar XML technologies like XPath, XSLT and XUpdate to query, transform and manipulate RDF. Also included are two applications that utilize Rx4RDF: Rhizome, a wiki-like content management and delivery system with wiki-like markup languages for authoring XML and RDF, and RDFScribbler, for viewing and editing RDF models."

17:10:59 <dc_rdfig> Added comment E1.

17:11:39 <Wack> E:Website seems to be bases upon some sort of Wiki, but all content is gone (?)

17:11:41 <dc_rdfig> Added comment E2.

17:11:41 <DanC> license?

17:12:09 <Wack> no idea, site is rather empty :]

17:12:24 <Wack> according to it's sf project page it's gpl

17:12:27 <dajobe> but what shields me from the complexity of XSLT?

17:13:00 <DanC> RxSLT, perhaps

17:14:25 <Wack> E: The [rx4rdf sourceforge project page|http://sourceforge.net/projects/rx4rdf] does work though...

17:14:25 <dc_rdfig> Added comment E3.

17:17:39 <DanC> D:under the heading of "Why using text/html for XHTML is bad" he says "Authors write invalid XHTML ...". That's not an argument against using text/html for XHTML; it's an argument against using text/html for stuff that isn't XHTML.

17:17:40 <dc_rdfig> Added comment D3.

17:18:18 <Wack> that isn't XHTML?

17:18:46 <DanC> anything that's not well-formed XML isn't XHTML, for noe.

17:18:48 <DanC> for one.

17:19:26 <DanC> he writes "If you send XHTML as text/html, as far as browsers are concerned, you are just sending them Tag Soup." not so!

17:20:10 <Dorward> OK guys, I'm going to head home now. Probably be back online in ~90 min. (I have to go shopping and I predict evil traffic tonight)

17:20:10 <DanC> "If you ever switch your XHTML documents from text/html to

17:20:10 <DanC> application/xhtml+xml, then you will in all likelyhood end up with

17:20:10 <DanC> a considerable number of XML errors" not so! there are no XML errors in XHTML documents.

17:21:06 <DanC> D:more nonsense: "If you ever switch your XHTML documents from text/html to application/xhtml+xml, then you will in all likelyhood end up with a considerable number of XML errors". There are no XML errors in XHTML documents.

17:21:06 <dc_rdfig> Added comment D4.

17:21:28 <deltab> Wack: Vary lists *request* header fields -- http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.44

17:21:41 <Wack> nitpicking about definitions does not invalidate his point does it?

17:22:10 <Wack> dorward encountered it, because his browser parsed the incorrect xhtml with a html tag-soup parser

17:23:51 <DanC> nitpicking? he has no point.

17:24:21 <DanC> bottom line is: serving up XHTML as text/html works great.

17:24:53 <DanC> that goofy non-XHTML documents cause problems is hardly noteworthy.

17:27:42 <Wack> deltab: 'Vary: Accept' should still work?

17:28:04 <deltab> Wack: yeah, aiui

17:28:08 <Wack> B3: Perhaps adding a 'Vary: Accept' header solves caching problems?

17:28:08 <dc_rdfig> Replaced comment B3.

17:29:27 <Wack> danc: that was my remark about nitpicking, you define a xhtml document as being valid _because_ it is xhtml, but most html authors 'out there' have a rather different view of (x)html

17:29:55 <JibberJim> The problem I have with serving up text/html is that the only times we're given any authority to do it is via Appendix C. of xhtml1 - and appendix is not testable against.

17:30:50 <JibberJim> Even the W3.org's own homepage has something that is rather dubious validity (an attribute on an input type=hidden that is only valid in prose on other input types)

17:31:32 <md-work> md-work is now known as mdupont

17:33:21 <DanC> the web community arrived at a definition of XHTML thru due process. Anybody who has a different idea can either get involved in the due process and change it or not; but if not, I don't owe them anything.

17:34:13 <Hixie> i hear danc is disagreeing with my "don't send XHTML if you want UAs to treat it as HTML" treatise? :-)

17:34:25 <Wack> sorry danc, could not resist mentioning it ;)

17:34:38 * DanC sees nothing to apologize for

17:35:13 * DanC presumes Hixie can find my comments via logs etc. cited in the /topic

17:35:33 * Hixie goes to read archives scrollback for background

17:37:01 * Hixie chuckles as he notes the archives themselves don't conform to Appendix C

17:38:32 <Hixie> (hi nmg, btw)

17:38:40 <DanC> details, Hixie? dajobe tweaks the logs pretty regularly

17:38:49 <nmg> (yup, hi ian ;)

17:39:03 <dajobe> it's the xhtml vs mime type thing, DanC

17:39:25 <Hixie> DanC: the case i noticed was of a /> not proceeded by a space, which i believe is an appendix-c-violation (informative appendix of course, so it doesn't technically matter)

17:39:35 <dajobe> oh that

17:39:51 <JibberJim> lang="en" also needs xml:lang="en"

17:40:00 <dajobe> 'cos xsltproc doesn't have an xhtml output mode

17:40:12 <Hixie> why not output html?

17:40:54 * DanC wonders what Hixie means by html; I consider XHTML a dialect of HTML, so the logs are output in HTML, to me

17:41:16 <Hixie> HTML4, my bad

17:41:49 <Hixie> as in, what parsers are supposed to treat the content as when they read text/html

17:41:53 <Hixie> (still reading scrollback)

17:42:43 <Hixie> ok, here we go

17:42:54 <Hixie> DanC: <DanC> he writes "If you send XHTML as text/html, as far as browsers are concerned, you are just sending them Tag Soup." not so!

17:42:59 <Hixie> DanC: why do you say "not so"?

17:43:23 <DanC> "[XHTML1]

17:43:24 <DanC> defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML

17:43:24 <DanC> 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html.

17:43:24 <DanC> "

17:43:31 <DanC> -- http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt

17:43:41 <Hixie> that's a lie

17:43:43 <Hixie> it's not compatible

17:43:55 <Hixie> for the MANY reasons i list in that document

17:44:05 <Hixie> (different CSS semantics, DOM semantics, parsing rules, etc)

17:44:59 <Hixie> (and I have sent those reasons in a detailed e-mail to www-html-editor at the request of the htmlwg, although i haven't had a reply)

17:45:25 <DanC> that "lie" was established by due process. Are you participating?

17:45:41 <DanC> [oops; my irc client ate half of what I typed]

17:45:57 <JibberJim> Do you have a link to the issue tracking for that one Hixie?

17:46:01 <DanC> that "lie" was established by due process. If you disagree, there's a process for changing it. Are you participating?

17:46:17 <Hixie> DanC: yes, like i said, i mailed the group on their request

17:46:22 <Hixie> JibberJim: don't think it's in voyager. let me look.

17:46:25 <D[a]vey> D[a]vey is now known as Davey

17:46:54 <DanC> All the "reasons" I found in that document were nonsense.

17:47:22 <Hixie> DanC: i'm trying to see why you think so. i've reached your first such claim, but you haven't explained it yet:

17:47:22 <Hixie> <Hixie> DanC: <DanC> he writes "If you send XHTML as text/html, as far as browsers are concerned, you are just sending them Tag Soup." not so!

17:47:22 <Hixie> danbri DanC

17:47:22 <Hixie> <Hixie> DanC: why do you say "not so"?

17:48:21 <DanC> I say "not so" because it is not so. If you send XHTML as text/html, you are following the community standards.

17:49:08 <Hixie> no, according to the HTML WG, as per an e-mail from steven, sent to www-html, and quoted in my document, the HTML WG request that XHTML UAs that receive text/html entities parse them according to their HTML parsers using their tag soup error recovery methods.

17:49:45 <DanC> Steven's opinion isn't a community standard.

17:49:55 <Hixie> it wasn't his opinion

17:50:07 <Hixie> it was a statement of the wg opinion from the wg's chair.

17:50:16 <Hixie> in response to a formal request for such an opinion

17:50:19 <Davey> Wow, hey Hixie

17:50:34 <Hixie> (and it is the only such opinion in either direction that has been published)

17:50:36 <Hixie> hey Davey

17:51:06 <DanC> looking for this quote from Steve, I just find more nonsense: "The XHTML DOCTYPEs are not valid HTML DOCTYPEs"

17:51:13 <DanC> "The "xmlns" attribute is invalid HTML."

17:51:23 <Hixie> what is wrong with either of these statements?

17:51:41 <Hixie> oh, you treat HTML as a family name

17:51:44 <Hixie> hold on, let me fix the document

17:52:06 <ericP> i guess the HTML4 doctype is an invalid HTML3 doctype btu that doesn't make HTML4 not HTML3

17:52:18 <Hixie> yes it does?

17:52:34 <ericP> rather doesn't make it NOT HTML

17:52:40 <Hixie> right

17:52:55 <JibberJim> The absense of any user agents which do treat XHTML served as text/html as XHTML is also of relevance I feel - without a single implementation - how can we really say the community agree with it?

17:52:57 <ericP> so waht's the diff with XHMTML1 ?

17:53:18 <Hixie> i meant HTML4, not HTML. I'm correcting the document as we speak.

17:53:22 <ericP> jim, did you mean "as XML" ?

17:53:46 <JibberJim> as XHTML - which obviously includes the WF XML requirements amoung others.

17:54:24 <DanC> I'm still trying to figure out the relationship between this message from Steve (which I'm still struggling to find) and the community standards. The community standard for text/html is held in trust by IANA, which points to http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt . You claim that document contains "lies" and you're welcome to your opinion, but that doesn't change community standards.

17:54:28 <ericP> sorry, not catching the semantics if XHTML here

17:54:30 <DanC> Steven

17:55:03 <Hixie> DanC: message is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Sep/0024.html

17:55:23 <ericP> do you mean that it doesn't treat it as an XML document, with all the various stylesheet and other associated extras?

17:55:26 <ericP> (jim)

17:55:42 <ericP> or that it doesn't treat it as HMTL?

17:55:50 <DanC> Steven seems confused: "Therefore, documents served as text/html should be treated as HTML and not as XHTML."

17:55:59 <ericP> or that it doesn't treat it as the union as defined by the spec?

17:56:06 <JibberJim> you're suggesting Amaya refuses to show a non-WF html served as text/html document I guess ericP ?

17:56:07 <DanC> he owes the community an update to the text/html spec

17:56:21 <Davey> Hixie: may I PM you quickly?

17:57:01 <JibberJim> I'm saying there's no UA which stops processing normally non-WF xhtml as text/html documents as I understand the XHTML 1.0 spec requires.

17:57:06 <ericP> jim, interesting point. seems kind of antisocial to refuse to serve invalid XHMTL, but that's was the spec says, sin't it

17:57:42 <ericP> they are allowed to continue processing for error display.

17:57:43 <JibberJim> Sure, it's incredibly anti-social, which is why I stick with html4

17:57:47 <Hixie> DanC: my statement ("If you send XHTML as text/html, as far as browsers are concerned, you are just sending them Tag Soup.") is not contradicted by the RFC. UAs _are_, in practice as well as per the request of the WG, required to parse anything sent as text/html either as HTML4 or (if it is invalid) as tag soup. Where does the RFC disagree with this?

17:57:53 <Hixie> Davey: sure

17:58:16 <ericP> if amaya put up a box that said "there were some probs ...", that may suffice

17:58:22 <DanC> "[XHTML1]

17:58:23 <DanC> defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML

17:58:23 <DanC> 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html."

17:58:34 <ericP> so long as it never saved that document in an invalid form

17:58:43 <Hixie> DanC: you can paste that as often as you like but claiming it is compatible doesn't make it so

17:58:55 <JibberJim> Sure it probably would suffice IMO - but there's still no UA I know of which actually does that.

17:59:16 <Hixie> JibberJim: http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/XHTML-1.0?id=6232;expression=appendix%20c;user=guest

17:59:17 <ericP> jim, i don't think you have to stick with HTML4 because stopping processing of a non WF document is antisocial

17:59:24 <Hixie> JibberJim: XHTML-1.0/6232

17:59:34 <ericP> you just have to publish WF documents, which is pretty easy

17:59:48 <DanC> I stipulate that "compatible" is debateable. Nonetheless, the RFC says XHTML1 documents maybe be labelled text/html

18:00:11 <Hixie> DanC: oh i don't debate the "may". I'm debating whether it is wise or not.

18:00:29 <Hixie> DanC: If it wasn't allowed, I wouldn't have to write documents explaining why it was bad. I could just say "it's not allowed".

18:01:13 * DanC finds that saying "it's not allowed" doesn't often stop folks either...

18:01:43 <Hixie> granted :-)

18:02:23 <DanC> Your argument seems to be confused between "if you don't follow the specs, you'll run into trouble" and "if you *do* follow the specs, you'll run into trouble".

18:02:33 <DanC> that is: I, as a reader, am confused by which of those you mean.

18:02:50 <Hixie> well, both are true.

18:02:55 <JibberJim> I'm not implementing a sufficient QA process to ensure that all my documents are WF (and stick to being WF in response to bugs in the XML parsers of UA's) when I could just use a semantically identical ML without these problems, and proven reliability

18:03:22 <DanC> the former is hardly remarkable, is it? And I found it very distracting from any argument you made about the latter.

18:03:44 <Hixie> interesting point

18:03:51 <Hixie> maybe i should restructure it to have the two more separate

18:04:32 <DanC> I'd appreciate that.

18:14:44 <Hixie> DanC: ok, reload and see if you agree with it now :-)

18:15:44 <DanC> well, it still discusses sending non-XHTML under the heading "Why using text/html for XHTML is bad".

18:16:20 <Hixie> what term should i use for "documents that claim to be XHTML despite being invalid XHTML"?

18:19:06 <JibberJim> Wouldn't an invalid xhtml document still be an xhtml document, just not a strictly conforming one?

18:19:22 <Hixie> well, that was my assumption too

18:19:26 <Hixie> danc seems to disagree :-)

18:20:16 <DanC> I have no interest in a term for "documents that claim to be XHTML despite being invalid XHTML"; the concept is totally irrelevant to any argument that following the specs leads to trouble.

18:21:29 <JibberJim> So you'd be happy that a document which doesn't follow the specifications should not be labelled as text/html ?

18:22:41 <JibberJim> A document such as the one returned from http://www.w3.org/ with an accept header indicating a preference for text/html ? (which has an attribute on an element which it is not defined)

18:23:53 <DanC> yes, I'm happy that "a document which doesn't follow the specifications should not be labelled as text/html"

18:24:24 <DanC> I haven't finished investigating the w3.org homepage issue; I'd appreciate if you'd report the problem to site-comments@w3.org

18:24:41 <Hixie> DanC: i agree with you. my point is that authors are doing this, and by doing it for XHTML they are setting themselves up for trouble which, if they tried to use HTML4, they would never get.

18:25:18 <DanC> ok, but don't call that point "Why using text/html for XHTML is bad". call it "Why using text/html for random strings of characters is bad" or something.

18:25:45 <Hixie> it's not random strings of characters

18:25:56 <Hixie> it's random strings of characters that claim to be XHTML as opposed to HTML4

18:26:47 <DanC> "characters that claim"? anthropomorphism. no thanks. "characters that people claim are XHTML" makes it more clear where the fault is: with the people who don't play by the community standards. This is an argument *for* the community standards.

18:27:15 <Hixie> an XHTML doctype at the top of a document makes the document claim it is XHTML.

18:27:33 <DanC> ah; true.

18:32:10 <Wack> i'm off, have to buy some groceries and food before the shop closes!

18:32:16 <Hixie> DanC: ok, reload again :-)

18:32:54 <JibberJim> Do we not have an issue with charset defaultings too a document served as text/html and application/xhtml+xml will have different validity due to different charset rules.

18:33:41 <DanC> ok, "Why using text/html for XHTML is bad" is now coherent, provided the "See below" reference pans out...

18:33:47 <Hixie> hehe

18:33:50 <Hixie> good start :-)

18:35:01 <DanC> "Current UAs are HTML4 user agents (at best)" overstates the case. I use Amaya and galeon and mozilla-firebird. I know Amaya has explicit XHTML support, and I think galeon and mozilla-firebird do.

18:35:17 <Hixie> read the full sentence

18:35:25 <Dorward> Mozilla certainly does - it even has an XML parser.

18:35:45 <DanC> "not native" is false, no?

18:36:00 <DanC> I'm not relying on mozilla's error handling, nor Amaya's.

18:36:03 <Hixie> this is only in the context of text/html.

18:36:06 <JibberJim> It does not use the XML parser when it is sent as text/html Dorward

18:36:29 <Dorward> JibberJim: Correct. I'm going on what DanC said :)

18:36:41 <Hixie> if you send XHTML as text/html, you should (per the HTMLWG) use the UA's HTML4 error recovery code.

18:36:59 <Hixie> i.e., XHTML-as-text/html is not the native language of the text/html parser.

18:37:01 <DanC> I don't think "the key" is anything about tag soup. If there's a "key" it's more likely something more crisp like css rules that don't work or javascript that doesn't work because of DOM weirdness.

18:37:26 <Hixie> reload.

18:37:30 <Hixie> i moved that down one section

18:37:36 <Hixie> (you're right, it didn't belong where it ended up)

18:39:34 <DanC> the argument would be more clear and compelling, to me, if you took a specific and not-too-contrived case of the CSS or DOM problems and elaborated it in some detail right at the top.

18:40:17 <DanC> I find myself following "see below" and [1] links and such before I find something that really seems to say anything I care about.

18:40:52 <JibberJim> Hixie, your "script cannot have their content escaped" is not correct, XML parsers only MAY, not MUST remove comments.

18:41:01 <Hixie> DanC: well, the document isn't aimed at you really, it's aimed at typical web authors. but point taken. reload, is that better?

18:41:11 <Hixie> JibberJim: but the MUST not execute them.

18:41:12 <Hixie> er

18:41:15 <Hixie> JibberJim: but they MUST not execute them.

18:41:21 <Hixie> JibberJim: the comments, that is.

18:41:32 <JibberJim> The HTML UA doesn't execute it, it passes it to the script element.

18:41:43 <JibberJim> (the comments included are valid script)

18:41:44 <Hixie> JibberJim: i.e. the comments can be in the DOM, but it isn't part of the content, and shouldn't be run.

18:41:57 <Hixie> in HTML, <script> elements are CDATA and <!-- is thus not SGML markup.

18:42:27 <Hixie> in XHTML, <script> is PCDATA, so <!-- is XML markup and is thus not passed to the script evaluator.

18:42:28 <JibberJim> Ah yeah, I see what you're saying.

18:43:50 <DanC> It's still a bit fuzzy on whether it's following the specs or not following the specs that gets me into trouble: "XHTML documents that use the "/>" notation, as in "<link />", are not valid HTML4 documents". well, duh. "A CSS stylesheet written for an HTML4 document is interpreted slightly differently in an XHTML context" good to know, but doesn't seem like such a big deal that I should throw out all the benefits of XHTML.

18:44:32 * JibberJim isn't sure what the benefits of XHTML are in this context?

18:44:49 <Hixie> DanC: well, the css thing actually affects at least one of the links in the /topic of this channel

18:44:57 <Hixie> indeed, what _are_ the benefits?

18:44:58 <DanC> benefits of XHTML: I can use XSLT to scrape an RDF version of my travel schedule from my homepage.

18:45:12 <Hixie> so, namespaces?

18:45:21 <DanC> what about namespaces?

18:45:22 <Hixie> you're not allowed to include namespaces in XHTML-as-text/html

18:45:37 <Hixie> oh, i see what you are saying

18:45:41 <Hixie> oh, you mean to transform your XHTML into RDF

18:45:48 <DanC> yes.

18:46:03 <JibberJim> The advantage is you've got an XSLT hammer - that can be solved by using a HTML4 - XHTML conversion it's a mechanical process tidy or many other proxies can do it.

18:46:15 <DanC> i.e. I can use lots of handy XML tools on my XHTML, and still benefit from the deployed support for text/html

18:46:41 <Hixie> DanC: that's actually mentioned in the last comment in the last section before the appendices

18:46:44 <JibberJim> I don't see why your desire to use XML tools on some content doesn't force you to make the conversion - it's more useful in fact because we know that most text/html content is invalid.

18:47:04 <DanC> I've got lots of tools like XSLT that grok well-formed XML. nxml-mode. The list is long and growing. Why bother with HTML4->XHTML conversion?

18:47:19 <JibberJim> Because most of the text/html content you find on the web isn't valid.

18:47:47 <DanC> I'm really, really not interested in discussing the fact that 80% of everything is drek.

18:47:55 <Hixie> DanC: so why not use application/xhtml+xml ?

18:48:11 <DanC> I stipulate that 80% of everything is drek. Can we leave that aside forevermore, pretty please?

18:48:12 <JibberJim> niq has a web proxy capable of doing the conversion to XHTML on the fly, so you never need know.

18:48:36 <DanC> because there isn't much deployed support for application/xhtml+xml.

18:48:50 <DanC> and I don't really see why anybody should support application/xhtml+xml

18:49:22 <DanC> it seems cost-effective to evolve the definition of text/html

18:49:24 <JibberJim> Because it allows us to do useful things like mix MathML or RDF or SVG in with our XHTML semantics.

18:50:04 <Hixie> and because it doesn't get parsed as HTML

18:50:06 <Hixie> HTML4 that is

18:50:22 <DanC> i don't think application/xhtml+xml contributes much to the RDF/HTML mess. MathML and SVG do provide motivation.

18:50:29 <Hixie> you can't evolve text/html for the reasons given under "Why UAs can't handle XHTML sent as text/html as XML" in my document

18:51:42 <DanC> Hixie, it seems much cheaper, to me, to increase the level of proper XHTML 1.0 support in text/html clients than to make a new MIME type. Mixing in Math and SVG is perhaps the time to make a new mime type. but not for headings/paragraphs/lists.

18:51:59 <Hixie> DanC: you can't evolve text/html for the reasons given under "Why UAs can't handle XHTML sent as text/html as XML" in my document

18:52:09 <DanC> i.e. that current browsers have bugs goes under "80% of everything is drek." boring.

18:52:09 <Hixie> as much as that would be great

18:52:16 <Hixie> boring maybe to you

18:52:24 <Hixie> but of rather critical importance to everyone else

18:52:56 <DanC> no, it's boring to everone else too. Yes, we all have to live with it. but none of us finds it very interesting, I'm pretty sure.

18:53:21 <Hixie> in that case i don't see why you mention that it is boring

18:53:36 <Hixie> it's still a blocker issue that means your idea of evolving text/html is unworkable.

18:53:48 <DanC> I mention that it's boring in hopes of using the bandwdith thru this channel for something else.

18:54:32 <DanC> why is it unworkable to deploy better XHTML support? It seems completely workable. It's happening every time I apt-get update.

18:54:43 <Hixie> dude, read what i said

18:54:53 <Hixie> what's unworkable is parsing text/html as XML

18:55:11 <Hixie> you can increase XHTML1 support for other MIME types, that's fine

18:55:16 <Hixie> all modern UAs support that

18:55:25 <Hixie> opera, safari, mozilla, etc.

18:57:03 <lilo> [Global Notice] Hi all. This will be of interest to many of you and we can use the feedback. A researcher from the Complex Systems Computation Group at Helsinki Institute for Information Technology has come to us wanting to use the network for a research project. It involves next-gen search engine technology.

18:57:47 <lilo> [Global Notice] He would like to log content on public channels to use it as a database for the project. If you'd like to hear about it, and ask questions, and help us figure out if this is doable, please stop by #searchengine . Thanks.

19:00:45 <Hixie> DanC: fyi i've updated the document to take into account your last commetns too. thanks for your input, i think the document is much clearer now because of it.

19:09:16 <DanC> welcome

19:09:57 <sh1mmer> you guys see whats going on in #searchengine?

19:10:07 <dajobe> give us a clue, sh1mmer

19:10:20 <sh1mmer> they want to index freenode

19:10:44 <dajobe> hah

19:11:04 <sh1mmer> they have a guy from helsinki talking about doing stastical npl analysis etc

19:11:16 <sh1mmer> its quite interesting in a mad prof. kinda way :P

19:11:52 <dajobe> that would be hard to retroactively impose on all channels

19:12:22 <mattmcc> They're not going to try, they're asking for channels to agree to participate.

19:12:47 <dajobe> I think we've got our own logging sort, IMHO, and the social conventions

19:12:50 <dajobe> sorted

19:12:54 <sh1mmer> lilo and the admins are in on it, so its all nice an official and opt in

19:14:01 <sh1mmer> dajobe well arnia and I have been playing with various nlp stuff for years now

19:14:40 <sh1mmer> and the latest iteration of our plans will be using rdf for storage and efficiency

19:14:41 <sh1mmer> :)

19:15:10 <sh1mmer> but you would be better asking him about that :P

19:33:25 <sh1mmer> you know what would be cool?

19:34:05 <sh1mmer> if they implemented foaf in their search engine by recognising "<somenick> nick: blah" means that <somenick> is talking to nick:

19:34:09 <Dorward> A fridge

19:34:31 <sh1mmer> Dorward not if it isn't turned on.

19:34:42 <Dorward> this one is

19:35:04 <sh1mmer> got any beer in it?

19:35:18 <Dorward> nope

19:35:34 <JibberJim> nick's as FOAF are extremely problematical, they'd need to be able to talk to nickserv, and only do it with registered and logged in ones.

19:35:41 <sh1mmer> yes

19:35:59 <sh1mmer> they could just check for +e

19:36:08 <sh1mmer> which nickserv grants on identify

19:36:47 <JibberJim> but that wouldn't identify a particular nick was a particular person - nickserv would have to give some identifier to them

19:37:37 <sh1mmer> i was thinking it might be interesting to see if they could link nicks together by behavour

19:54:12 <dajobe> hmm, I've made the server tweaks to deliver the application/xhtml+xml mime type, if it's in Accept:

19:54:16 <dajobe> not sure whether to keep that

19:55:30 <JibberJim> dajobe - application/xhtml+xml;q=0 means I don't accept it, not send it to me!

19:56:16 <dajobe> it's going to be a regex, not a http_accept processing

19:56:28 <JibberJim> Then I'd not do it!

20:00:14 <dajobe> I'll wait for >1 feedback

20:02:07 <JibberJim> As an editor of a W3 rec. How can you be so happy to ignore other standards?

20:02:29 <dajobe> first it's not a rec

20:02:32 <dajobe> second, tough

20:02:53 <Hixie> HTTP is a joint W3C/IETF REC now, no?

20:03:04 <dajobe> I'm not rewriting apache mod_rewrite just for you

20:03:32 <dajobe> I have added an exclusion when q=0 to not generate the app* type

20:03:50 <octothorp> hey dajobe

20:04:01 <octothorp> I was looking at the Redland Perl API

20:04:14 <octothorp> thinking of trying to rework it, make it a bit more perlish

20:04:22 <octothorp> but investigation suggests that it's already plenty perlish

20:04:33 <dajobe> yeah, who said it wasn't?

20:04:39 <dajobe> it's OO-y

20:04:47 <octothorp> what's likely to give experienced Perl hackers trouble (IMHO) is the example files

20:04:55 <octothorp> having to explicitly undef objects and stuff

20:04:58 <dajobe> I haven't updated all of them after the changes

20:05:02 <dajobe> oh that's still needed

20:05:09 <dajobe> due to the perl destruction problems I can't fix

20:05:13 <octothorp> so I was wondering if you might accept submission of revised example and test files

20:05:24 <dajobe> you can try, but if it crashes it, I'll keep them in

20:05:40 <octothorp> I don't think there's really a destruction order issue

20:05:46 <octothorp> I took a look and I can't find it

20:05:56 <octothorp> if you have details, let me know

20:06:00 <octothorp> 'cause I'd like to fix it

20:06:02 <dajobe> it's possible perl 5.8.* or so fixed it

20:06:12 <octothorp> one can influence destruction order through reference counts

20:06:24 <dajobe> if you can do some testing for me, that would be great

20:06:25 <dajobe> yeah, I tried that

20:06:26 <dajobe> it failed

20:06:29 <octothorp> really

20:06:34 <dajobe> oh yes

20:06:39 <dajobe> failed in the way that python didn't

20:06:40 <octothorp> I can't believe this is an insurmountable problem, I'd like to help

20:06:41 <dajobe> :)

20:06:47 <dajobe> thanks

20:06:51 <octothorp> so the problem is global destruction at program termination?

20:07:02 <octothorp> and not local destruction when objects go out of scope, right?

20:07:05 <dajobe> pretty much

20:07:20 <octothorp> huh

20:07:24 <dajobe> global that is

20:07:25 <octothorp> do you have test cases that exercise the bug?

20:07:46 <dajobe> taking out the undefs at the end of progs seems to do it

20:07:50 <octothorp> okay

20:08:08 <dajobe> if you set the debug flag, $Redland::Debug=1 you can watch things destroy IIRC

20:08:11 <octothorp> I just wanted to check in with you and find out if you were interested in code submissions before I rolled up my sleeves :-)

20:08:17 <octothorp> good to know, thx

20:08:23 <dajobe> yes, of course I am, thanks

20:08:48 <octothorp> word

20:09:15 <octothorp> I really want to start building RDF apps in perl, and the Redland API is >< so close to being perfect

20:09:28 <dajobe> ok, that's good

20:09:46 <octothorp> hoping to give it one last push

20:10:08 <JibberJim> Thanks dajobe, as long as you don't serve to =0 then I think you're okay to con-neg specs.

20:10:16 * dajobe notes we can take this to #redland if this bugs people

20:10:29 <JibberJim> I hope RDF syntax becomes rec soon.

20:11:01 <dajobe> AOL

20:28:18 <bitsko> is there a practical difference between a property that doesn't exist and a property that exists but has an empty literal value? Is it appropriate to use "property existance" for boolean (has/doesn't have) properties?

22:41:55 <Davey> Davey is now known as D[a]vey

23:03:15 <DanC>http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/grammar/n3-rdf.n3

23:03:16 <dc_rdfig> F: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/grammar/n3-rdf.n3 from DanC

23:03:26 <DanC> F:|Notation3 subset which is RDF without extension

23:03:27 <dc_rdfig> Titled item F.

23:03:42 <DanC> B:by timbl in the last few days

23:03:42 <dc_rdfig> Added comment B4.

23:07:08 <DanC> B4:""

23:07:08 <dc_rdfig> Deleted comment B4.

23:07:12 <DanC> F:by timbl in the last few days

23:07:12 <dc_rdfig> Added comment F1.

23:07:25 <DanC> F:hmm... compare/contrast with [http://esw.w3.org/topic/PieNt|PieNt]

23:07:26 <dc_rdfig> Added comment F2.

23:07:37 * DanC looks around for seanb

23:10:07 <DanC> F:among [http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/grammar/|swap/grammar] stuff

23:10:08 <dc_rdfig> Added comment F3.

23:14:14 <dajobe> F:[http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-09-09.html#T15-18-05|earlier discussion] that lead to ntriples+a few things (ntriplesplusn)

23:14:14 <dc_rdfig> Added comment F4.

23:16:14 <DanC> C:further discussion resulted in revisions that close the gap somewhat.

23:16:14 <dc_rdfig> Added comment C2.

23:16:26 <DanC> C2:""

23:16:26 <dc_rdfig> Deleted comment C2.

23:16:31 <DanC> D:further discussion resulted in revisions that close the gap somewhat.

23:16:31 <dc_rdfig> Added comment D5.

23:26:53 <grault> grault is now known as earle

23:44:44 <eaon|out> eaon|out is now known as eaon