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

Re: editorial comments on CURIE spec

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:05:44 -0400
Message-Id: <782DE793-45F6-491E-933F-22D264B3AC7C@mit.edu>
Cc: mark.birbeck@x-port.net, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
To: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>


Ralph, Mark,

Given the short timeframe before submitting these docs to Guus and  
the clear path to implementing the straight-forward changes below.  
The only point I did not address was #6, regarding the preemptive  
argument against using XML entities. Mark, if you've got time to say  
a few words about that, that would be great.

The new CURIE spec is at the following URL, which will be stable from  
now on for this version.

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-10-27-CURIE

-Ben

On Oct 27, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Ralph R. Swick wrote:

>
> 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 20:06:01 GMT

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