The niceties of dated vs non-dated URI-s of W3C documents... I must admit I did not even realize the XHTML2 group has published a new version yesterday. Regardless, my statement is still true, namely that the safest bet at this moment is to refer to RDFa that is mandated to become a Recommendation, it is on the charter of the SWD WG, and there is a current official timeline for it. I do not know about the detailed plans of the XHTML2. *If* they publish it as a Recommendation before OWL1.1 becomes one, we can always switch to that one if we want; there should be no technical difference between the two. Ivan Michael Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 15:29 +0100, Ivan Herman wrote: >> Just to clarify the current situation: >> >> - The CURIE WD[1] is, well, moribund indeed. It is not clear whether the >> XHTML2 WG will ever go down the full Recommendation route with it and, >> if yes, when. > >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/curie > > The timeline is confusing things. Prior to yesterday [1] was > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20070307 > > and now it has been updated to > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126 > > > Were your statements intended to apply to the March draft or the Nov 26 > draft, or is the distinction irrelevant? > > Thanks, -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 15:05:18 UTC