W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > June 2007

Partial regrets (was Re: RDFa Telecon - Thursday, 1500 UTC, 1100 Boston)

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:43:15 +0200
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ttw1udlqsmjzpq@acer3010>

I'm at a FtF, so will only be able to attend via irc.

Steven

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:24:34 +0200, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:

>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Our telecon is this Thursday, June 14th, 1500 UTC, 1100 Boston, which is
> in about 21 hours. I'll get the agenda out more promptly as I get more
> settled in!
>
> -Ben
>
>
> ==========
> Thursday, June 14th, 2007.
> 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
> tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA
> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
> Duration: 60 minutes
> ==========
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1) Action Item Review
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007May/0073
>
> 2) Issues Review
>
> - ISSUE-25: Default Datatype for Literals. I believe we resolved this,
> but let's make it official.
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/25
>
> - ISSUE-2: custom shorthand attributes
> We haven't discussed this in a while, and I think we should vote NO on
> this, or at least postpone it to a later version of RDFa. We have to
> start closing these issues :)
>
> - ISSUE-5: rel/rev/property CURIE only, or CURIE/URI?
> We've all been working on the assumption that it's CURIE only, and I'd
> like to formalize this assumption and move on.
>
> - ISSUE-28: following one's nose to the RDFa specification.
> We should discuss this. I suspect that, with the latest validation
> story, we have a good solution, though I'm not opposed to saying that a
> profile is "good practice" if you know ahead of time that your page will
> have RDFa.
>
> - ISSUE-29: what is the MIME type for an RDFa document?
> I think we informally agreed that it is "whatever the host language's
> mime type is." Let's formalize this.
>
> 3) Schedule and Document Status
> (I'm still updating the schedule document, but we'll discuss this on the
> call.)
>
> 4) The @RESOURCE and @HREF situation
> We need to start coming to a conclusion on this, so let's lay out the
> options and discuss.
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:43:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:23 UTC