W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2008

review of current draft of 'RDFa syntax

From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:10:26 -0500
Message-ID: <f032cc060802050810mceadd3cledc9152013b928c5@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Hi folks,

Below is my review of the current Editor's Draft (25/Jan/2008) of the
"RDFa Syntax and Processing" [1]:

Generally I found the processing section much improved. I sympathize
with the authors having to write code in natural language. I found
myself wanting to read code instead of descriptive text at times--so
perhaps pointing at the reference implementation would help people
like me? I also found myself wondering whether bnode usage should be
detailed so much.

I found a few typos, and had a few questions.

Nice work!

[1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080125/







The aim of RDFa is to allow a single [RDF graph] to be carried in an
XML document of any type, although this specification deals
specifically with RDFa in XHTML.

Is non-XHTML RDFa discussed in any other documents that would be worth
linking to here?



Is it worthwhile mentioning the reference implementation?



Is it worth mentioning that 'direction' needs to be captured in the
list of incomplete triples?



Just a style question, are the blue boxes that don't flow out to the
right margins intended to draw attention to new changes temporarily?
They are blocks with class = 'explanation'. IMHO they kind of break up
the flow of things currently, and stand out a bit.



s/initialised/initialized/ # twice

Also, is it worth pointing out again that the 'direction' needs to be
captured in the list of incomplete triples?



Is the issue with Chained bnodes with no real statements captured as
an Issue in the SWD Issue Tracker?


Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 16:10:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:26 UTC