Re: PROPOSAL: What would be in an RDFa Syntax 1.0 Second Edition

I must say I wonder. If we really plan to come out with a 1.1 soonish,
then re-issuing a new recommendation so soon after 1.0 may re-enforce
those whose argument is that RDFa was not ripe for publishing in the
first place. I am not sure we need that.

Having an errata is great. I wonder whether we need anything else than
1.1 which, obviously, will include those errata, too.

Note that @lang is, for me, not even an errata, ie, I am not sure it is
appropriate in PER. It is a (slight and necessary!) change but, for
example, I did have to change my implementation because I rejected @lang
before (which was according to the 1.0 spec).


Shane McCarron wrote:
> Mark raised the issue today of producing a 1.1 version of RDFa Syntax. 
> I think that's a fine idea, and that we should get started on it ASAP. 
> But I also think that we could almost immediately produce a Second
> Edition as a PER.  The things I would incorporate into such a document are:
>    * Integrate the XML Schema implementation of XHTML+RDFa.
>    * Update our references.
>    * Add @lang into the language, with the precedence rules as defined
>      in XHTML 1.1 Second Edition [1] and XHTML Basic 1.1 Second Edition
>      [2].  This would keep RDFa+XHTML consistent with XHTML 1.1, and
>      make it more useful for people who use assistive technologies.
>    * Integrate any clarifications we have identified via errata.
> What do people think about refreshing the current Recommendation?
> [1]
> [2]


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key:

Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 06:40:32 UTC