- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:52:16 +0100
- To: "'W3C RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
On Friday, March 29, 2013 1:16 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > > Hmm.. that's true. Maybe a viable alternative would be to specify how > > fragment identifiers are used in appendix E which would allows us to > keep > > non-normative references!? Or do you think that's not an option? > > I am a bit uneasy with any hack just to speed up the publication by a > few months. If the document goes to, say, CR, and then it is clear that > the spec is ready to go and will be synchronized with the rest, it > would not hurt any deployment (unless the other documents get into a > very long delay, but I trust the WG chairs to avoid that...) Which I completely understand. In this case however, I don't think the dependency is strong enough to justify the risk of including a normative reference. RDF Schema hasn't even be published as FPWD and RDF11-CONCEPTS depends normatively on DOM4 and HTML5. What would happen if RDF Concepts is ready but these two specs aren't? What if they aren't till the end of the year and the charter expires? I think that's a huge risk. It's good to have these discussions now, so thanks for raising it. Cheers, Markus -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 12:52:49 UTC