W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > December 2012

Re: New Editor's Draft for HTML+RDFa 1.1

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 21:25:57 -0500
Message-Id: <436A03E7-9A39-4CB6-8D16-76CB9374821F@w3.org>
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
It was indeed a reponse to Tab. That being said, even if he maintains his objection, ie, does not find this solution satisfactory, my proposal would be to add this nevertheless as a good thing to have no matter what...

Ivan

---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



On 2 Dec 2012, at 20:21, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 12/02/2012 03:26 PM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Ah yes, we did. I remember thinking that while editing the documents,
> and then convinced myself that I didn't need to do that just yet as we
> haven't heard back from Tab yet. We may need to make more changes on
> that particular issue based on Tab's response (as the issue remains open).
> 
> I'll add that text in the next round of edits.
> 
> -- 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 Monday, 3 December 2012 02:26:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:57 UTC