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

Re: ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:32:34 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=V0fFUYxHuiEcC934yZAYbDre-eqOPt9pijAAa@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-rdfa@w3.org
On this topic....

Is it possible/useful to make reference to
http://www.productontology.org in
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RDFaPrefixesNoChange ?
That resource makes extensive use of prefixes in its RDFa examples.

 -Sebastian


On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote:
> About a month ago I posted a proposal [1] in response to this call. My
> mail didn't make it's way through to the public-html list at the time
> (I wasn't then a member of the WG nor aware of its procedures). But
> the mail did make it through other channels, so I thought I should
> clarify my position.
>
> Soon after posting I discovered the RDFaPrefixesNoChange proposal [2].
> This includes the same substantive point that I was trying to put
> forward, that the proposal "Use of prefixes is too complicated for a
> Web technology" [3] is contradicted by the evidence.
>
> So instead of formalising my own proposal, I'd like to express my
> support for RDFaPrefixesNoChange.
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2011Feb/0002.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RDFaPrefixesNoChange
> [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120
>
>>> Date:     Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:57:36 -0800
>>> From:     Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
>>> To:       HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
>>> Subject:  ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals
>>>           or Counter-Proposals
>>>
>>> The current status for this issue:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120
>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-120
>>>
>>> - We a single change proposal to simplify the HTML+RDFa specification
>>>   by removing prefixes.
>>> - We have another change proposal to clarify how prefixes work and
>>>   explain that they are optional.
>>>
>>> At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit any other alternate
>>> Change Proposals (possibly with "zero edits" as the Proposal Details),
>>> in case anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a different
>>> change than the specific one in the existing Change Proposals.
>>>
>>> If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by March
>>> 3rd, 2011, we proceed to evaluate the change proposal that we have
>>> received to date.
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://danny.ayers.name
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 21:33:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 March 2011 21:33:07 GMT