Re: *quick* thoughts on ISSUE-109 and ISSUE-110

Ben,

personally, I am happy with Mark's response. Also, his text hints at 
something that we may want to do more 'official' in those responses, 
namely that there are issues and features whose solution are not 
absolutely clear, therefore have not been included into this release 
following the 80/20 rule, and that there is an intention to continue the 
RDFa work beyond this (although we do not know how, when, and where). 
This may be the appropriate answer for a number of issues raised.

This raises a procedural question, though, that we may want to address 
(Ralph is much more aware of the various issues here). Should we call 
this RDFa or RDFa 1.0? By thinking about versioning  ahead of time we 
may save some headaches in the future...

Ivan

Ben Adida wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Laurens Holst raised a couple of interesting issues:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/109
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/110
> 
> which Mark answered in:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0311.html 
> 
> 
> Folks on the task force, please skim the issues and Mark's response, and 
> let me know with a +1 if you think this is a sufficient response, or -1 
> if you'd like to discuss this further.
> 
> -Ben
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf