- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:33:58 -0800
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Shane McCarron wrote: > > But this document (rdfa-syntax) IS the XHTML spec. Huh? I'm sure it's included *in* the XHTML2 spec, but it must also stand on its own since it will go to last call on its own for RDFa-in-XHTML1.1 purposes. Or am I not understanding your point? > It also makes us and our language (XHTML+RDFa) dependent upon another, external > REC track document that we would then have to be in lock step with on > our way to publication. Well, hold on, we're talking about RDFa in XHTML1.1 right now. For RDFa in XHTML2, you (the XHTML WG) should do what's right from your point of view, of course. But for RDFa in XHTML1.1, we're not depending on unpublished specs, we're only depending on XHTML1.1 reserved words. -Ben
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 17:34:10 UTC