review of current draft of 'RDFa syntax

Hi folks,

Below is my review of the current Editor's Draft (25/Jan/2008) of the
"RDFa Syntax and Processing" [1]:

Generally I found the processing section much improved. I sympathize
with the authors having to write code in natural language. I found
myself wanting to read code instead of descriptive text at times--so
perhaps pointing at the reference implementation would help people
like me? I also found myself wondering whether bnode usage should be
detailed so much.

I found a few typos, and had a few questions.

Nice work!

[1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080125/

//Ed

--

3.8

s/N-Triples/Turtle/

--

3.9

"""
The aim of RDFa is to allow a single [RDF graph] to be carried in an
XML document of any type, although this specification deals
specifically with RDFa in XHTML.
"""

Is non-XHTML RDFa discussed in any other documents that would be worth
linking to here?

--

4.4

Is it worthwhile mentioning the reference implementation?

--

5.2

Is it worth mentioning that 'direction' needs to be captured in the
list of incomplete triples?

--

5.4.3

Just a style question, are the blue boxes that don't flow out to the
right margins intended to draw attention to new changes temporarily?
They are blocks with class = 'explanation'. IMHO they kind of break up
the flow of things currently, and stand out a bit.

--

5.5

s/initialised/initialized/ # twice

Also, is it worth pointing out again that the 'direction' needs to be
captured in the list of incomplete triples?

-- 

5.5.5

Is the issue with Chained bnodes with no real statements captured as
an Issue in the SWD Issue Tracker?

--

6.1.1.3

s/rel=license/rel=xh:license/

Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 16:10:42 UTC