- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:32:27 +0200
- To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
1. I think Mark's email address is changing. He's probably already remarked on that. 2. I think we need to disambiguate the use of "HTML WG". I think we should say "XHTML2 WG" or, "HTML WG as was, now the XHTML2 WG". 3. We should either expand "@rel" etc., to "the rel attribute", or explain the @ notation. 4. I like the comparison of not using namespaces to storing all files in one folder! 5. "Field names". Is this a technical term I hadn't heard or something you use just for this document? I personally would prefer 'property'. 6. You call @instanceof a "new RDFa attribute". I would remove the 'new' here. 7. You say that the TYPE arrow is special. I would remove that, and just say that it indicates the type of the node, and leave it at that. It's not really *that* special. 8. Shortly after the phrase "Alice is ecstatic" you have an example using foaf:knows, with a couple of mistakes: http://example.com/bob/">Bob</a> should read http://example.com/elias/">Elias</a> and http://example.com/eve/">Eve</a> should read http://example.com/michael/">Michael</a> 9. It should be made clear that the graph that results has nothing to do with the <ul> in the code, and that the same would have been produced if the <ul> has been another <div> and the <li>s <p>s. 10. The acknowledgments refer to the XHTML2 WG and the references to the HTML WG (though with the XHTML2 WG URI). These need to be consistencised. 11. I don't think that the primer needs to reference itself in the references. :-) That was it. Steven
Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 10:33:05 UTC