W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > June 2007

Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-1: reification

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:44:30 +0100
Message-ID: <640dd5060706270744g621e3085x14322b811e7bedce@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Ben,

No problem with this, but might need to pin down the detail of how we
do this. For example, by removing the ability to put <link> and <meta>
anywhere in the document (which we've discussed because many browsers
move those elements out of context and into <head>) we lose the
current technique for supporting reification anyway.

So I guess what I'm saying is "+1 for removing 'link and meta
anywhere', and then "+1 for *not* reinstating reification with some
other syntax".



On 27/06/07, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> In our continuing effort to close issues, I want to bring up a few more
> for discussion. We will attempt to close these by end of next week.
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/1
> This is about supporting reification. We had a proposal at some point
> [1], but at this point there seems to be a consensus to stay away from
> reification support, given that some don't even consider it part of the
> RDF specification.
> The current proposal on the table, then, is to not support reification.
> Please send +1 or disagreements ASAP!
> -Ben
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Apr/0007

  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 14:44:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:50 UTC