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 16:11:53 -0400
Message-Id: <6DCAE552-C91A-4B79-949D-047BFC9A9D90@mit.edu>
Cc: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, mark.birbeck@x-port.net, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
To: Ben Adida <ben@MIT.EDU>


I somehow garbled that first sentence.

What I meant was: "given the short timeframe, **I implemented** the  
straight-forward changes, except #6."

-Ben

On Oct 27, 2005, at 4:05 PM, Ben Adida wrote:

>
>
> 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 20:12:42 GMT

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