W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Help with Pubrules Compliance for Concepts

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 11:41:41 -0400
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <ACA094A2-EE74-4843-AA37-FE26253B1EF7@3roundstones.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Thanks for the help, Peter and Markus.  I have created a static version and checked it in.

However, the document previously validated using the W3C Markup Validation Service but the static version created from ReSpec shows 81 errors.

Speaking as a volunteer with too little time available, this frustrates me greatly.  Am I expected to clean these up by hand?

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On Jul 4, 2013, at 05:43, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> See
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Tips_on_publishing_ReSpec-based_documents
> for the process.
> 
> That document is a bit inscrutable in one spot.   Respec has a special process that is triggered by cntrl-alt-shift-S which produces a non-respec version of the document that you can then copy and paste into a text editor and then put into the drafts area. Warning:  this triggering is somewhat fragile, it happened for me only about 1/4 of the time I tried the incantation.
> 
> peter
> 
> On 07/03/2013 07:35 PM, David Wood wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Several of you have offered to help get Concepts ready with respect to Pubrules.  Thanks.  It looks like I'll need it.
>> 
>> Can someone please tell me how to get the Pubrules checker to understand that ReSpec has actually provided most of what it is complaining about?  Do I need to export the doc somehow?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> --
>> http://about.me/david_wood
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 15:42:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:30 UTC