W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > October 2005

editorial comments on CURIE spec

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:38:21 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20051027142424.033b4d60@127.0.0.1>
To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Re: "CURIE Syntax 1.0" 20 October 2005
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-10-21-curie

several recommendations:

1. Help readers understand the status of this document, specifically:

2. Change the style sheet to be the Editor's Draft style sheet, per  
   "Style for Group-internal Drafts" [1] as this is not yet a W3C Note.

   [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/03/28-editor-style.html

3. Add "produced in the context of the RDF-in-HTML Task Force
   of the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment and HTML
   Working Groups" to the Status of this Document section, with
   links to [2, 3, 4] respectively.

   [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/
   [4] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/

4. In 1 Motivation, add "URIs can be expressed /+in XML+/ using QNames.

5. In 2 Usage, clarify whether an empty namespace prefix (":foo") is
   meant to be interpreted the same as an absent namespace prefix
   ("foo").  Both are currently specified to use the "current base URL"
   but it might be more natural (esp. under our Tuesday discussion)
   to use the current default namespace.

6. 2.2 Ambiguities.  Some readers will ask why we're proposing a new
   mechanism rather than use XML entities.  I recommend we anticipate
   that question with an answer somewhere close this example.

7. The last example in 2.2 declares 'company' as a namespace prefix
   then uses something else that hasn't been declared.  This obscures
   the intention of the example.
  used
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2005 18:38:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:00 GMT