W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Spec section 9 (GRDDL Vocabulary)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:26:19 -0500
Message-Id: <702517d9a4d78257e07d98374d4fd780@w3.org>
Cc: "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>

On Feb 19, 2007, at 10:01 AM, McBride, Brian wrote:
> Dan,
>
> How close to having last call candidate spec are we?

Well, the spec is always a candidate, I suppose... if things
go well, I'll have disposed of all @@s one way or another
before Henry sends out this week's agenda.

> Section 9 of the spec has "@@this section needs work".

Indeed. I haven't finished thinking thru which terms that I'm using
in the mechanical rules should be in the GRDDL vocabulary
and which should go somewhere else... nor how to get that
namespace document to serve well as both a "getting started"
(i.e. a glorified link to the primer) and a reference.

Keep in mind that section numbers change; don't rely on them.
I adjusted the subject of this message.

> the mechanical rules appendix is missing.

Missing? Well, it could use a lot of work, or maybe it
could be dropped altogether. But it's there.
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec_rules

Another major @@ is under issue-http-header-links
@@TODO: integrate the proposal in the spec

The other @@s and editorial notes seem fairly minor.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 19 February 2007 15:26:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT