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

Re: dependencies (hopefully not) in RDFa...

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:06:33 -0600
Message-ID: <47B6FBF9.2060506@aptest.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

First, relax.  We were aware of these dependencies.

To address your specific questions:

1) XHTMLROLE is referenced normatively.  It will finish the W3C process 
LONG before rdfa-syntax, so I wouldn't worry about it.  However, it is 
only referenced to provide examples of well defined values for the role 
property in the vocab# space.  It is not critical to XHTML-RDFa, and we 
could remove the reference at any time without changing the meaning of 
the document.  I suggest we leave it in and, if we get to CR and ROLE 
isn't done, remove it.  That would not be a substantive change.

2) XHTMLMOD 1.1 is referenced only because when we started this that 
version was ready to go to CR.  And it still is.  For some reason we 
cannot get the W3C management to schedule a transition call. The 
document has been ready for over a year.  Its very frustrating.  
Regardless, the only reason we might NEED 1.1 instead of 1.0 is that 1.1 
defines schema implementation mechanisms.  If that were available to us, 
we could include a SCHEMA implementation for the metainformation module 
in an appendix (I already have one written).  However, this is not 
critical.  I hope that W3C will pull its thumb out and let us transition 
XHTMLMOD 1.1 in the coming weeks.  If not, we lose nothing by changing 
the reference to the REC.  However, we can safely wait until we are 
ready to go to CR.  Changing the reference would have no substantive 
impact on the document.

Obviously we could change or remove the references now and change them 
back later if things progress, but I would consider it a personal favor 
if we did not.  Keeping them maintains pressure on those documents, and 
that's important.

Thanks for noticing, but I am 100% confident that we are fine.

Ivan Herman wrote:
> 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
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Saturday, 16 February 2008 15:07:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 16 February 2008 15:07:02 GMT