W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: HTML+RDFa FPWD ready for publishing

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:14:36 -0400
Message-ID: <4ACF454C.5090706@digitalbazaar.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Paul Cotton wrote:
>> Here's the version that should be published:
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/
> 1. Status section
> The Status section should have a sentence describing the unique 
> status of this document.

Done: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#status-of-this-document

> 2. Section 6 Normative References
> a) Please add a reference for RFC 2119.

Done: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#refsRFC2119

> b) Please add a reference for [XHTML and RDF] (http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/02/xhtml-rdf.html).

I added it as a non-normative reference:


> 3. Short name
> We need to decide on a "short name" for the Working Draft.  
> Will "html+rdfa" be okay?

Mike and I discussed this a bit offline and decided that the document's
short name should be "rdfa-in-html". I believe this is how the RDFa
Community would like to continue naming these sorts of language profiles
for RDFa.

The idea is that we will eventually have an "RDFa Core" document that
will define syntax and processing rules. If a language would like to
incorporate RDFa, then a language profile document, such as "HTML+RDFa"
would be created whose short-name should follow the form of
"rdfa-in-LANGUAGE". So, for example: "rdfa-in-html" or "rdfa-in-svgtiny".

Thanks for taking the time to review the document :). Please let the
list know if these changes have not addressed your concerns.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 14:15:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:52 UTC