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

ISSUE-79: Specification Structure, Part 1.

From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:39:02 +0100
To: "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: "W3C RDFa WG" <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vrey3cresmjzpq@steven-750g>
Dear Jeni,

With respect to your comment  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jan/0044.html which  
initially got recorded as
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/75, the RDFa WG split your  
comment into three parts - so you will be getting three responses to it.

This response is about your editorial comment that information on CURIEs  
is split over three places, and that they should be merged.

* Section 3.8 Compact URIs (under 'RDF Terminology')
* Section 6 CURIE Syntax Definition
* Section 7.4 CURIE and URI Processing

The WG discussed this  
[http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-01-27#ISSUE__2d_79__3a__Editorial_merging_sections_on_CURIEs],  
and decided not to make the change.

The reasoning was that there needs to be a section on CURIEs that is  
independent of RDFa (to allow other specs to use them without any RDFa  
baggage), and that section 3.8 is non-normative anyway. The conclusion was  
therefore to leave them as-is.

If you have any problems with this decision, please let us know as soon as  
possible.
If you can live with the decision, a note to say so would help, but is not  
required.

Many thanks for your comments.

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton
For the RDFa group.
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 15:39:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:51 UTC