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

Shane McCarron wrote:
> First, relax.  We were aware of these dependencies.
> 

Great!

> 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.
> 

Good. I actually expected that one to be easy.

> 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.
> 

Pfew... So we do not really have a problem there either, in fact. I am 
now  perfectly relaxed:-)

> 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.
> 

That is the least we can do then:-)

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

Now, with these explanations, so am I!

Thanks Shane

Ivan

> 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
>>
> 

-- 

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