following up on issues assigned to Jeremy

Hi all,

One of my actions [1] is to circle back to the issues assigned to  
Jeremy, who unfortunately will be absent for a little while. For each  
of these issues, I propose a possible resolution, to be discussed at  
the next task force meeting.

- "follow up on HEAD about= edge case"
Issue recorded in [2]. This issue was brought up in Jeremy's  
implementation notes [3], specifically:
"what happens if the head has an explicit @about?"

PROPOSAL #1: If the HEAD has an explicit @about, then the default  
subject for the whole document is the value of this explicit @about.

- "propose wording on reification"
Issue recorded in [4]. This issue was brought up in discussion (same  
telecon), and questions whether RDF/A needs a compact reification  
syntax, given current doubts about reification.

PROPOSAL #2: RDF/A does NOT need to implement a compact syntax for  

- "followup with Mark on the question of multiple triples from nested  
meta and add to issues list"
Issue recorded in [5]. This issue was brought up during discussion  
(same telecon).
The question has to do *first* with whether we implement compact  
reification syntax or not, and I propose above that we NOT do that.

Then, what does

<meta property="bar"><meta property="foo" /></meta>

mean? Do they both refer to the first meta's parent node?

PROPOSAL #3: Both METAs refer to the outer META's parent element. One  
might have an outer META to set an ABOUT for a bunch of inner metas  
and links. This is particularly useful for the head of the document  
(see Steven's response to Bob DuCharme's example [6]).

- "look into XHTML namespace issue"
Issue recorded in [7]. This issue was brought up during discussion  
(same telecon):

We want to keep the same XHTML 1.1 namespace when we build the RDF/A  
XHTML 1.1 module, but
"there's an issue about the namespace URI, as it doesn't end in  
either '/' or '#'" (Steven)

PROPOSAL: none yet. I don't have a good sense for this issue and will  
need to consult with others before I can make a proposal. In fact,  
I'd rather reassign this to someone who's better positioned to think  
about this issue. Any Takers?



Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 19:03:23 UTC