Re: ISSUE-113 Alternative text

I think this text addresses the issues raised at the meeting and 
satisfies the resolution for issue 113.  I am going to incorporate it in 
the draft.

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'd like to propose a slightly different approach to the wording for
> the section on XHTML fragments that was added to the June 3rd editors'
> draft [1], as follows:
>
>   A growing use of embedded metadata is to take fragments of mark-up and move
>   them from one document to another. This may happen through the use
> of tools, such as
>   drag-and-drop in a browser, or through snippets of code provided to
> authors for inclusion
>   in their documents. (A good example of the latter is the licensing
> fragment provided by
>   Creative Commons.)
>
>   However, those involved in creating fragments (either by building
> tools, or authoring
>   snippets), should be aware that this specification does not say how
> fragments of
>   XHTML+RDFa should be processed whilst they are 'outside' of a complete
>   XHTML+RDFa document (although future versions of this or related
> specifications may
>   do so).
>
>   Developers of tools that process fragments, or authors of fragments
> for manual inclusion,
>   should also bear in mind what will happen to their fragment once it
> is included in an
>   XHTML+RDFa document, and are advised to carefully consider the
> amount of 'context'
>   information that will be needed in order to ensure a correct
> interpretation of their fragment.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080603/#sec_3.9.>
>
>   

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 17:09:37 UTC