- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:47:01 +0100
- To: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: "'W3C RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Mar 29, 2013, at 13:52 , "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: > On Friday, March 29, 2013 1:16 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > >>> Hmm.. that's true. Maybe a viable alternative would be to specify how >>> fragment identifiers are used in appendix E which would allows us to >> keep >>> non-normative references!? Or do you think that's not an option? >> >> I am a bit uneasy with any hack just to speed up the publication by a >> few months. If the document goes to, say, CR, and then it is clear that >> the spec is ready to go and will be synchronized with the rest, it >> would not hurt any deployment (unless the other documents get into a >> very long delay, but I trust the WG chairs to avoid that...) > > Which I completely understand. In this case however, I don't think the > dependency is strong enough to justify the risk of including a normative > reference. RDF Schema hasn't even be published as FPWD and RDF11-CONCEPTS > depends normatively on DOM4 and HTML5. What would happen if RDF Concepts is > ready but these two specs aren't? What if they aren't till the end of the > year and the charter expires? I think that's a huge risk. Hm, this looks like a avalanche:-) Indeed, HTML5 and DOM4 is an issue here, probably worth raising separately. Will do. Ivan > > It's good to have these discussions now, so thanks for raising it. > > > Cheers, > Markus > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 13:47:26 UTC