Re: feedback on RDFa primer

Bob,

Thanks for your in-depth comments, as usual! I've just committed a
version of the Primer that takes into account your comments, as
described below. I haven't given this version a new URL yet, as I'm
integrating a bunch of comments. You can see the in-progress version at:

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/

> Four overall comments:
> 
> - There's too much emphasis on browser RDFa awareness as the reason for
> adding markup.

I've tried to clarify that there are other approaches here. That said,
note that, in the case of RDFa, there are already lots of browser-side
tools, so there isn't as much of a chicken-and-egg problem.

> - I don't like the use of the term "field". [...]
> This can be addressed by a sentence or
> two before the first use of the term explaining that, for the purposes of
> the primer, it refers to a piece of labeled data or metadata.

I've done just that.

> - Similarly, the term "declare"

I've reduced its usage to more correct cases, and found alternative
wordings otherwise.

> - I'm a firm believer in bolding key parts of code samples,

Yes, we've had this comment a few times, and we intend on doing that,
only our XSLT doesn't make it easy right now. I'm working on it :)


Re: your many useful small edits, I've implemented almost all of them,
except:

>    which makes it particularly difficult to add the namespace declarations
>  in the html start-tag at the top of her page

We're not using the word "namespace" if we can help it, since these are
CURIEs.

>   We can use the convenient inheritance of the @about value to name the
> photo once and then add as much metadata as we want for that photo
> between the start- and end-tags of the element with the @about value:

Used this almost exactly, except for the word "metadata", which we're
also trying not to use. I've kept the use of "field" here.

-Ben

Received on Saturday, 13 October 2007 00:52:34 UTC