Ivan Herman wrote: > 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 I should have said: of the CURIE document in the XHTML2 WG. Sorry. Ivan > 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 15:14:39 UTC