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

dependencies (hopefully not) in RDFa...

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:25:36 +0100
Message-ID: <47B6BA20.7070604@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
CC: W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Shane, Mark,

please tell me we do not have a problem:-)

The current RDFa syntax makes a reference to two Working Drafts, ie, the 
Role and the XHTML1.1 modularization documents. You are involved in both 
of those: what is the timetable for their progression in the XHTML WG?

http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/

is a LC working draft, but it has been there since July 2006. The Role 
document

http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xhtml-role-20071004/

is also last call (since October 2007).

According to W3C Rules, the RDFa document can progress only with one 
step 'ahead'. Ie, we cannot go to PR if, by then, those two documents 
are not at least at CR, and to Rec unless those are at least PR. I would 
hate to see the process stalled because of that...

Put it another way: is it necessary to build in these dependencies?

- For the 'role' attribute, we could simply list it as an allowed 
@rel/@rev value, without any reference to the Role WD

- For the modularization, isn't it o.k. to refer to

http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/

ie, Modularization of XHTML? Is there any reason we have to refer to 
XHTML 1.1. modularization? Ie, is there anything we use that is 1.1 
specific?

Ivan

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Saturday, 16 February 2008 10:25:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 16 February 2008 10:25:41 GMT