W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: HTML+RDFa source updated (ISSUE-97, ISSUE-144, ISSUE-146)

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:06:52 -0500
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <41A42BEE-2CC6-4650-B37C-DDC2DBBD0570@kellogg-assoc.com>
On Jan 1, 2013, at 4:28 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Gregg,
> 
> minor comments, in view of a (hopefully) Last Call publication.
> 
> 1. Item #12 in section 3.1: There is a remark on whether @value will be retained or not. I guess, editorially, this should be a note after the bullet items, and maybe flag this item as an 'at risk feature'.

+1

> 2. Item #13, HTML Literal, Note: is this correct? I mean, if we are talking about an HTML datatype, setting the prefixes would mean adding xmlns:XXX to the generated HTML literal. Isn't that a big no-no? Or are we talking about @prefix declarations to be put here?

That's how the DT is defined in Concepts, but IMO, this should only be for XHTML. The purposes of node naming require the @xmlns; I don't think this is to maintain prefix state. If one of the purposes of rdf:HTML is to create a simpler, more usable type, I think we should consider not promoting @prefix and only promoting @xmlns for XHTML.

> 3. Section 3.5.1, note on 'at risk': I wonder whether we should call out in the text that this feature has a strong relationship to @itemref...

I don't think we should reference microdata at all.

> 4. Section 3.5.1, first paragraph: I think the reference should not only be RDFa Core 1.1 but also the HTML5 extras in this document.

+1

> 5. Section 3.4.2, first paragraph: I am not sure it is worth referring here to the entailment rules of RDF Semantics. First of all, it will tend to scare away people; but, in fact, the text here can/should be self-consistent anyway, so that referenced does not really add any new information. I propose to remove it.

Okay, then we'll probably need to expand on the pattern notation.

> 6. Section 3.4.2, did we say that a simple example would be useful here?

Did you mean 3.5.1? There is no 3.4.2. If so, there are two examples in 3.5, which I think are adequate.

Gregg

> Note to ourselves:
> 
> - add an example (or two) on the reference folding into the new version of the primer
> - we have to publish a new version of the RDFa namespace document, including rdfa:ref and rdfa:Prototype
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> On Dec 28, 2012, at 01:57 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> 
>> Prior to the next conference call, I updated the HTML+RDFa spec to include some missing elements and added a "Reference Folding" section. That section, in particular, could benefit from some more editorial work.
>> 
>> * Relevant to ISSUE-97, I added text to use the text content of a <time> element, if the element has no @datetime or @content attributes.
>> * Relevant to ISSUE-144, I added a "Reference Folding" section with a short description of the feature, and nomative language specified using Ivan's SPARQL UPDATE.
>> * Relevant to ISSUE-146, I added missing steps for head/body.
>> 
>> Gregg Kellogg
>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-in-html/Overview-src.html
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/97
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/144
>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/146
> 
> 
> ----
> 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 Tuesday, 1 January 2013 20:07:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:58 UTC