Re: *quick* thoughts on ISSUE-109 and ISSUE-110

Well - I called the Markup Language XHTML+RDFa 1.0.  I suspect this 
document as a whole should be 1.0 as well.

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Ben,
>
> personally, I am happy with Mark's response. Also, his text hints at 
> something that we may want to do more 'official' in those responses, 
> namely that there are issues and features whose solution are not 
> absolutely clear, therefore have not been included into this release 
> following the 80/20 rule, and that there is an intention to continue 
> the RDFa work beyond this (although we do not know how, when, and 
> where). This may be the appropriate answer for a number of issues raised.
>
> This raises a procedural question, though, that we may want to address 
> (Ralph is much more aware of the various issues here). Should we call 
> this RDFa or RDFa 1.0? By thinking about versioning  ahead of time we 
> may save some headaches in the future...
>
> Ivan
>
> Ben Adida wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Laurens Holst raised a couple of interesting issues:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/109
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/110
>>
>> which Mark answered in:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0311.html 
>>
>>
>> Folks on the task force, please skim the issues and Mark's response, 
>> and let me know with a +1 if you think this is a sufficient response, 
>> or -1 if you'd like to discuss this further.
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 10:26:22 UTC