W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > July 2010

Re: ISSUE-26: RDFa-specific vs. Earl-like Processor Status vocabulary

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:35:24 -0500
Message-ID: <4C34ACCC.4070309@aptest.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
As I said in an earlier email, my opinion is that a simple approach that 
extends the terms we are already defining seems most sensible.

On 7/7/2010 10:19 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> A new section was added over this past weekend to outline how an RDFa
> 1.1 Processor will handle processor warnings and errors:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-rdfa-core-20100705/#processor-status
>
> The last remaining issue to wrap up ISSUE-26 is to settle on an RDFa
> error vocabulary. We have two approaches to pick from.
>
> The first re-uses the Evaluation And Report Language[1]:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Error_vocabulary#An_EARL-like_approach
>
> The second is more specific to RDFa Processors:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Error_vocabulary#Simple_approach
>
> If you have an opinion on way or the other, please make it known on this
> mailing list. Ivan will author a vocabulary as soon as consensus is clear.
>
> -- manu
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Guide/
>
>    

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 16:36:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:07 GMT