Re: ACTION-11 Proposed Short Names

Ivan Herman wrote:
> I practical comment, though. There has always been a question in the
> past whether DTD-s or namespace documents or the like should be part of
> the core distribution as stated above. If a DTD gets stored in /TR space
> then, according to W3C rules, they cannot be touched any more even if
> the problem is just a stupid and obvious mistake. If the DTD is stored
> somewhere else, such changes become easier. The same with RDF
> vocabularies and the like. I wonder whether we should not treat them
> separately from the start.
>   

Yes - I agree.  In fact, while during development I have these in the 
tree, I don't leave them in the tree at publication time.  We should 
probably identify a location where those could live - or just use the 
location we already have (MarkUp/DTD, MarkUp/SCHEMA).  But I assume that 
the files should be in the source tree and be under source control while 
they are being developed?

> Also: we may have to have separate namespace documents for RDFa (eg, for
> small RDF vocabularies). Those may be stored separately these days as
> http://www.w3.org/ns/XXX.
>   

Actually, I would personally object to putting a vocabulary in the NS 
space.  The NS space is for namespaces.  Putting a vocab in there would 
only server to further confuse the line between namespaces and vocabularies.

>> Finally, in terms of structure on W3C's server in the RDFa area, I propose:
>>
>> 2010/02/rdfa/
>>   drafts/          - place where drafts for public consumption are dropped
>>      Overview.html - file that lists the documents in progress and has
>>     
>
> I'd prefer to use the Wiki for such lists rather than a separate HTML
> file. Remember the Wiki is, by default, editable to everyone in the
> group and does not need an additional CVS access (the latter will be set
> up for all editors but not necessarily for others).
>
> Ie, there should be a Wiki page with a table of the history for each
> document as well a pointer to the latest editor's draft.
>   

Yeah, I don't mind that.   Could the drafts folder redirect to the wiki 
page?

>> links to the latest
>>      2010/         - folder for each year
>>        ED-short-name-date/  - folder for each published ED
>>     
>
> I actually wonder whether it is worth storing the previous drafts under
> the rdfa tree. After all, once a draft is published, we are not supposed
> to touch it; for historical purposes the W3C publication process does
> make a copy anyway. So why storing duplicata?
>
> I presume the XHTML WG did that; the SPARQL or OWL WG did not. I would
> like to understand the thinking behind it...
>   

I might have confused you.  The only thing I was suggesting would be in 
there would be editor's drafts.  In the XHTML activity and RDFa Task 
Force we would from time to time decide that the changes we had made 
were ready for working group review but not really ready for formal 
review like a working draft. 


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

Received on Saturday, 27 February 2010 15:30:51 UTC