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

[RDFa] thoughts on Alan's points

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:07:22 -0700
Message-ID: <488F4E4A.1070200@adida.net>
To: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hey folks,

So I've read over Allan's detailed comments [1], and here's what I'm
seeing so far. I'm splitting things up according to the "--" separation
Alan used in his email.

- the points about the domain conflicts in some section 2.2 examples
seems to be correct, and probably are worth a few corrections which I
believe are really clarifications for correct vocabulary use, and thus
have nothing to do with RDFa itself, and thus are editorial.

- the point about "referring to other documents and resources" is a bit
nitpicky, we are using @about, and that seems just fine. I would reject
that comment and say that @about is a reference.

- the point about <span> and the lack of reference is, I believe, a
misunderstanding about trying to extract *too* much meaning from the
HTML elements. This requires no more than a clarification, in my
opinion, about how often we are using HTML elements simply to carry RDF.


confusion about @typeof, merits a bit of editorial editing to make sure
all descriptions are consistent, but nothing significant here.


confusion about "no child nodes" in the plain literal subcase of step 9.
I think we should say something like "no child nodes *other than a text
node*". Small editorial.


some valid, but subjective, points about organization of certain
subparts of Section 6. It may be worth clarifying in Section 6 for which
steps in Section 5 they provide details.


CURIE reference: because that doc is not a REC.


@rel/@rev reserved words: the list of reserved keywords is expanded
beyond what was in XHTML modularization (I believe), thus that's the
reason for not referencing it.


So, in other words, I *do not* think that Alan has raised any
substantive issues. I'm happy to help draft some language,
but I'd love to hear Mark and Shane's opinions on these points first.


Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 17:08:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:28 UTC