Re: xhtml-rdfa updated

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Shane,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I had a quick look at the draft before I _really_ disappear tomorrow
> morning for a week:-) But I wanted to give my first set of reactions.
> 
> - A stylistic thing: would it be possible not to use that frequently the
> <meta> and <link> elements in the examples? This is more of a
> 'messaging' issue than anything else, but I guess one of the main
> message we want to put forward is that meta information can be put on
> _any_ element, and are not part of the header (via link and meta) only.
> Eg, 4.1 uses the <meta> element only, and a casual reader may think that
> we are talking about attributes for that element only...

Emphasising that RDFa builds on <meta> and <link> is for other reasons 
prudent, I think. By establishing historical continuity, and reminding 
people of this, we show that RDFa brings together two long separated 
areas of W3C work. This is good for teaching RDFa, good for trust from 
users who'll feel their investment in our older specs was worthwhile, 
and perhaps might even help establish RDFa's position in the wider 
jumble of HTML-based languages floating around W3C.

Dan