- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:44:00 +0100
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Hi Shane,
Thanks for addressing the additional changes!
I found one error of mine and two additional items which I hope can be
quickly addressed.
>>>> "2.2 Examples"
>>>> --------------
>>>>
>>>> * I find the example a bit awkward since it builds up an event by
>>>> first implying that the current document is the event, before
>>>> enclosing it as a bnode of type cal:Vevent..
>>>
>>>
>>> I removed this example in favor of using something about books to show
>>> typeof as per a suggestion from Manu
>>
>> Good. But there are still two examples above that using cal:summary
>> and cal:dtstart properties which describe the current document
>> (compare to the full event described in section 8). Perhaps using
>> something like:
>>
>> <body>
>> <h1 property="dc:title">My home-page</h1>
>> <p>Last modified:<span property="cal:dtstart"
>> content="2015-09-16T16:00:00-05:00"
>> datatype="xsd:dateTime">today</span>.</p>
>> </body>
>>
>> is better?
>
>
> I have put this in.
1. Great. But I see that I botched a detail in my fix. Sorry. :( If you:
- change cal:dtstart to dc:modified,
- remove the then unnecessary cal: prefix declaration,
- add xsd: as a prefix (for uniformity, since no other example here
relies on predefined prefixes),
it should all be good. The resulting markup would be:
[[[
<html
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
prefix="xsd: http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
dc: http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
>
<head><title>My Home Page</title></head>
<body>
<h1 property="dc:title">My home-page</h1>
<p>Last modified: <span property="dc:modified"
content="2015-09-16T16:00:00-05:00"
datatype="xsd:dateTime">16 September 2015</span>.</p>
</body>
</html>
]]]
2. I believe the text above this example should mention @content as
well? Something like: "If some displayed text is different from the
actual 'value' it represents, a more precise value can be added using
@content. A value can also optionally be typed using @datatype:".
3. It seems that some red highlights for this and the immediately
preceding example are missing. Here it should be @content and
@datatype. In the preceding example, @property should probably be
highlighted.
That's all for now. If I understand correctly, we do have some time to
do smaller editorial changes up until the PR, correct?
Because, as agreed, we should reword the note on CURIE prefix
overshadowing somewhat, based on our recent change (e.g. saying that
regular scheme + "://" IRIs cannot be expanded). I'll gladly draft
that text in the coming days.
I also assume possible clarifications on various steps in the
processing sequence (7.5) are possible to do, provided they are
explanatory in nature (i.e. don't change any logic)? Since we might
uncover such things during the call for implementations (though
hopefully before, i.e. now, of course).
Best regards,
Niklas
Received on Sunday, 29 January 2012 21:44:58 UTC