Re: RDFa Implementation Report and Reviewed Editors' Draft

Hi Ben,

It has been an easy review. I agree with all the changes introduced in 
the Syntax. Anyway, I would like to raise your attention to a number of 
broken links to the DTD modules. I assume that they will be fixed before 
the next transition. I've also reviewed the resolutions of the CR 
issues, and they look fine.

Btw, although I have not reviewed the Primer, let me say that I fully 
support the s/HTML/XHTML/ change.

Cheers,

Diego.

Ben Adida wrote:
> Ed, Diego, (and SWD WG),
>
> The RDFa work is ready for working-group review, and the review should
> be fairly easy: we've only made minor editorial changes.
>
> RDFa Syntax Editors' Draft:
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080814/
>
> Diff from CR version:
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080814/rdfa-syntax-diff.html
>
> RDFa Implementation Report
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/implementation-report/
>
> Issues Addressed for CR:
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/121
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/122
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/124
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/125
>
> We don't have final responses from all commenters, yet, but we will keep
> the WG updated of course, and we won't schedule the transition call
> until we're ready.
>
>
> And if you're interested, although it's not required reading at this
> stage, we also have a new version of the Primer, with two notable
> changes: we now say "XHTML" instead of "HTML" and explain why, and we
> link to a complete example page of markup:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080813/
>
> -Ben
>