- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:26:05 -0500
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Manu, great. Just cursory look at the differences: didn't we decide that, if an element overrides an inherited curie prefix locally via a @prefix, a warning should be generated into the processor graph? That would also automatically include a warning if a prefix from the initial context is overwritten. I do not see that in the new draft. Cheers Ivan --- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) On 2 Dec 2012, at 14:39, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > A new editor's draft for HTML+RDFa 1.1 has been published which > incorporates all decisions made by the newly re-chartered RDFa WG to > date. As of this moment, there are no plans to add any new features or > remove existing features from HTML+RDFa 1.1. This document is probably > the one that is going to go to Last Call, so please review it and try to > find any issues or problems: > > http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2012/ED-rdfa-in-html-20121202/ > > You can view a diff of the changes here: > > http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2012/ED-rdfa-in-html-20121202/diff-20120911.html > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: The Problem with RDF and Nuclear Power > http://manu.sporny.org/2012/nuclear-rdf/ >
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2012 20:26:31 UTC