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

[RDFa] Re: Comments on the latest snapshot of the primer (2007-02-27)

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:59:25 -0500
Message-ID: <45E849DD.1010008@adida.net>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, W3C SW Deployment WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


Addressing Ivan's comments.... I've created a new snapshot of the Primer
document available at:

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20070302/

> Abstract, first paragraph, first sentence: 'are chock-full': let us try
> to avoid colloquialisms that most of the non-English World would not
> understand:-) (the same term reappears in the first sentence of section 1)

I was certain I'd already fixed this, but I think I only applied the
changes to the Use Case document. Fixed now.

> Section 1, second paragraph: clearly, for 'messaging' reasons, I would
> prefer not to mention XHTML2 at all. What about saying
> 	
> 	"One should be able to use RDFa with different XML dialects, e.g.
> XHTML1, SVG, etc, given proper schema additions. In addition, RDFa is
> defined so as to be compatible with non-XML HTML."

Okay, I've added something along those lines. DONE.

> Section 1, third paragraph: you say: "An HTML document marked up with
> RDFa constructs is a valid HTML Document." and I think you will be
> attacked on that front, won't you? I think you should make it clear that
> it is a valid XHTML (or even, XHTML1) document. It is soooo messy with
> HTML these days (without the 'X') that you should not open the
> floodgates in my view. (I know this is controversial. My only motivation
> is to avoid unnecessary turf wars at the moment...)

I've clarified this, though I insist a bit more than you suggest: an
HTML document remains compliant, even if it doesn't validate (yet).
mostly DONE.

> Section 1, fourth paragraph, plus the bulleted items: you should add the
> xsd namespace to the bulleted items, too

DONE.

> Section 2.2, specification of date (I am deliberately very picky
> here!!): the even refers to the XTech conference, which takes place in
> Paris. In May, it will UTC+2 timezone. Ie, the value for the date-time
> should be 20070508T1000+0200, right? :-) [I am sure this example was
> written by Ben:-)]. The same value appears many times in the examples,
> by the way, so all of them should be changed...

Yeah yeah :) The event was actually from last year, though that doesn't
justify the time zone. DONE.

> Section 2.3, just a heads-up: I hope that an updated vcard in rdf
> document will be published soon (pushing them, pushing them:-). I guess
> the references and possibly the code will have to be updated when that
> comes.

Okay, keep us posted!

> Section 5.1, second example: shouldn't there be an id="card" on the dl
> element? If so, that is repeated below in several examples.

It's not required, but I'm adding it for clarity (and so you can click
on that link and go to the right place). DONE.

-Ben
Received on Friday, 2 March 2007 15:59:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:03 GMT