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

Re: Procedural question on [Fwd: Re: Fine-tuning CURIEs]

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:28:42 +0100
Message-ID: <a707f8300709110928r63021374h17d4b6a305a39318@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, "W3C RDFa task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "Ralph Swick" <swick@w3.org>

Hi Ivan,

As Shane says, this has been discussed many times. The approach we're
taking is that we'll see how it pans out, but we'll plan for as many
possibilities as possible.

The CURIEs draft is most definitely pressing ahead. Our work on
metadata in XHTML is not confined to RDFa, although it is obviously
the jewel in the crown; we've also created the role attribute and a
module for access key, and these also need CURIEs. That's why we
defined a separate spec.

However, as things stand, the various specifications that require
CURIEs have the prose from the CURIEs draft pasted in. If the CURIEs
spec becomes formalised before any of the specs that would benefit
from it, then they can refer by reference. If any of those specs beat
CURIEs to the finish line, then they can stick with the pasted in
prose.

I think that's a pretty good approach myself. The prose that I put in
he syntax document about CURIEs working in any language is going to
move across to the CURIEs draft proper, when it's all been finalised.
However, what happened here is that some things were missing in the
'RDFa in XHTML' version of CURIEs, so I had to go back to first
principles a little to work out what was missing.

I'm pleased to hear that your primary goal coincides with mine, by the way. ;)

Regards,

Mark


On 11/09/2007, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> Shane,
>
> thanks. It was indeed not clear.
>
> Shane McCarron wrote:
> > The XHTML Working Group is absolutely producing a separate document for
> > CURIEs.  The reason we have incorporated the basic rules that apply to
> > XHTML+RDFa into the syntax document is so there is no dependency on this
> > separate document.  When the separate REC is ready, we can editorially
> > update the syntax document.
> >
>
> Hm. My prediction is that the RDFa syntax document will become a REC
> _before_ the CURIE document will become a REC. In which case you cannot
> update the syntax document any more (unless issuing a new release...)
>
> I know, I am very 'selfish' here, and my primary goal is to have the
> current RDFa work done. Anything that smells a delay makes me feel itchy:-)
>
> Ivan
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 16:29:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:52 UTC