W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: ISSUE-124 (RDFa Lite Document Conformance): Should HTML + RDFa Lite and HTML+RDFa Document Conformance requirements be different? [RDFa 1.1 Lite]

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 08:59:59 +0100
Message-Id: <4B1008F6-42CD-47B3-B6E6-9621474297BA@w3.org>
To: RDF Web Applications Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi guys, here I am again... Although not yet in full force. But back gradually...

My opinion on this:

- there should be no separate conformance for RDFa Lite
- actually: I think the full conformance section in the RDFa Lite document (which, strangely enough, does _not_ define a separate conformance level in the first place) should be removed from that document. Conformance is defined in RDFa Core...

My 2 cents

Ivan

On Dec 8, 2011, at 02:10 , RDF Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> 
> ISSUE-124 (RDFa Lite Document Conformance): Should HTML + RDFa Lite and HTML+RDFa Document Conformance requirements be different? [RDFa 1.1 Lite]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/124
> 
> Raised by: Manu Sporny
> On product: RDFa 1.1 Lite
> 
> Raised by Paul Cotton:
> 
> Paul Cotton raises the question about whether or not we should provide two levels of document conformance for RDFa in HTML, or just one.
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Dec/0040.html
> 
> The question of a subset of attributes creating a new conformance class also came up, but we had decided to not have two conformance classes based on a subset of RDFa attributes. We should verify that this is still true.
> 
> 
> 


----
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 Thursday, 8 December 2011 08:00:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:18 GMT