RE: new editor's draft of Primer

Ben,

This document really looks good to me, now.
To improve it even more, you may consider taking
the following comments into account:

+ Is there deliberately no reference to the 
RDFa use cases document [1] in the Primer?

+ I tried to run the Primer through the pubrule
checker [2] - it fails. Maybe to early?

+ There are still now and then terms used in
the Primer (as 'web') that should be written 
according to [3]

+ The 'Changes' section should be at the very bottom
of the document (IMHO this is good practice, but 
no strict requirement)

+ Minor editorial issues (typos, etc.):

 - Sec. 2.2, second-last paragraph 'etc...'
 
 - Heading of sec. 3 currently reads 
   '3 Advanced Concepts: Custom Vocabularies, Document Fragments,
Complex Data, ...'
   Can we find a more concise title, here?
 
 - In sec. 5 there is a link to rdfa.info (case studies).
   Could we also link to the (already with existing content)
   http://rdfa.info/rdfa-in-the-wild/?

  
However, even if the above mentioned issues are not addressed, 
I think we are ready to submit this document ;)

Cheers,
	Michael
 
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-scenarios/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules
[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Terms

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Adida
>Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:05 AM
>To: RDFa
>Subject: new editor's draft of Primer
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>Here is the latest Editors' Draft of the Primer, updated with comments
>from Shane, Manu, Ralph, and Ivan. One missing piece right now is an
>example with @href on a non-anchor. I left that aside because I can't
>fit it in cleanly without too long an explanation: maybe it's okay to
>not have this in the Primer, and instead to have this as a use case,
>e.g. Joost?
>
>Also, I still need to color the markup properly to highlight the RDFa
>attributes. I'll do that in time for end of week before we ship this to
>the WG.
>
>Note that, after thinking about Shane's comment regarding duplication
>between abstract and intro, I took out the abstract 
>altogether. It seems
>to me that, with such a short document, an abstract might be overkill.
>Let me know if you feel it is missing, even after reading the first
>couple of paragraphs.
>
>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20070918/
>
>-Ben
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2007 07:38:01 UTC