Thursday, 29 July 2010
- Updated drafts for publication
- Re: ISSUE-36: Notice of RDFa Profiles allowing rdfa:vocabulary predicate
- ISSUE-36: Notice of RDFa Profiles allowing rdfa:vocabulary predicate
- RDFa WG telecon minutes for 2010-07-29
- ISSUE-37: Explanation of _:xyz pattern needs to be refined in RDFa Core
- Re: Telecon Agenda - July 29th 2010, 1400 UTC
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
- Implementation also works: Re 2: Updated RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa for review
- Re: Updated RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa for review
Monday, 26 July 2010
- Telecon Agenda - July 29th 2010, 1400 UTC
- XHTML M12N publication is imminent
- Updated RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa for review
- Core heart-beat publishing and public comments
- Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile
Sunday, 25 July 2010
- Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile
- Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile
- Re: RDFa Profiles, terms, and predicates (oh my!)
Saturday, 24 July 2010
Friday, 23 July 2010
- Re: RDFa Profiles, terms, and predicates (oh my!)
- Re: RDFa Profiles, terms, and predicates (oh my!)
- Re: RDFa Profiles, terms, and predicates (oh my!)
- Re: RDFa Profiles, terms, and predicates (oh my!)
- Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile
- Re: RDFa Profiles, terms, and predicates (oh my!)
- Re: RDFa Profiles, terms, and predicates (oh my!)
- Re: RDFa Profiles, terms, and predicates (oh my!)
- Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile
- Re: RDFa Profiles, terms, and predicates (oh my!)
Thursday, 22 July 2010
- Re: RDFa Profiles, terms, and predicates (oh my!)
- Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile
- RDFa Profiles, terms, and predicates (oh my!)
- RDFa WG telecon minutes for 2010-07-22
- ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: Telecon Agenda - July 22nd 2010, 1400 UTC
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-26: We don't need any RDFS vocabulary for error triples!
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
- Re: ISSUE-26: We don't need any RDFS vocabulary for error triples!
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-26: We don't need any RDFS vocabulary for error triples!
- Re: ISSUE-26: We don't need any RDFS vocabulary for error triples!
- Re: ISSUE-26: We don't need any RDFS vocabulary for error triples!
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-26: We don't need any RDFS vocabulary for error triples!
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
Monday, 19 July 2010
- Telecon Agenda - July 22nd 2010, 1400 UTC
- Re: ISSUE-26: We don't need any RDFS vocabulary for error triples!
Saturday, 17 July 2010
- Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core]
Friday, 16 July 2010
- Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core]
- Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core]
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core]
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core]
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core]
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core]
- ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core]
Thursday, 15 July 2010
- PF Working Group and RDFa
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- RDFa WG telecon minutes for 2010-07-15
- Re: Telecon Agenda - July 15th 2010, 1400 UTC
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST ignore @version
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- ISSUE-35 (IETF LinkType registry): Consider relationship between LinkTypes in RDFa and the IETF LinkType registry [RDFa 1.1 Core]
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: XHTML Basic + RDFa
- Re: XHTML Basic + RDFa
- SHOULD vs MUST ignore @version
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- XHTML Basic + RDFa
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: Duplicates in @prefix
- Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
- ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary
- Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID pre-alpha specification (uses RDFa)
- Telecon Agenda - July 15th 2010, 1400 UTC
Monday, 12 July 2010
- Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID pre-alpha specification (uses RDFa)
- Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID pre-alpha specification (uses RDFa)
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
- Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID pre-alpha specification (uses RDFa)
- Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID pre-alpha specification (uses RDFa)
- Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID pre-alpha specification (uses RDFa)
- Re: WebID pre-alpha specification (uses RDFa)
Sunday, 11 July 2010
Saturday, 10 July 2010
- Re: Feedback on RDFa Core 1.1
- Re: Feedback on RDFa Core 1.1
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
Friday, 9 July 2010
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
- Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1
- Re: ISSUE-3 PROPOSAL: Infoset coercion
- Re: ISSUE-3 PROPOSAL: Infoset coercion
- Re: ISSUE-15 PROPOSAL: @version attribute in HTML5
Thursday, 8 July 2010
- Re: ISSUE-24 discussion
- Re: ISSUE-15 PROPOSAL: @version attribute in HTML5
- Re: ISSUE-15 PROPOSAL: @version attribute in HTML5
- RDFa WG telecon minutes for 2010-07-08
- ISSUE-24 discussion
- Re: ISSUE-3 PROPOSAL: Infoset coercion
- Re: ISSUE-3 PROPOSAL: Infoset coercion
- Re: ISSUE-3 PROPOSAL: Infoset coercion
- Re: ISSUE-15 PROPOSAL: @version attribute in HTML5
- Re: ISSUE-15 PROPOSAL: @version attribute in HTML5
- Re: ISSUE-26: RDFa-specific vs. Earl-like Processor Status vocabulary
- Fwd: changed FR and UK dial-in numbers for teleconferences
- ISSUE-3 PROPOSAL: Infoset coercion
- ISSUE-15 PROPOSAL: @version attribute in HTML5
- Re: ISSUE-26: RDFa-specific vs. Earl-like Processor Status vocabulary
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
- Re: ISSUE-26: RDFa-specific vs. Earl-like Processor Status vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-26: RDFa-specific vs. Earl-like Processor Status vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-26: RDFa-specific vs. Earl-like Processor Status vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-26: RDFa-specific vs. Earl-like Processor Status vocabulary
- Re: ISSUE-26: RDFa-specific vs. Earl-like Processor Status vocabulary
- ISSUE-26: RDFa-specific vs. Earl-like Processor Status vocabulary
- Re: Telecon Agenda - July 8th 2010, 1400 UTC
- Re: Annotating our specs with RDF...
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Monday, 5 July 2010
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
- Telecon Agenda - July 8th 2010, 1400 UTC
- Re: Updating RDFa Core
- Updating RDFa Core
- RDFa WG issues updated
- ISSUE-34 (meta-name triple generation): Should RDFa 1.1 generate triples from META element @name attributes [RDFa 1.1 Core]
- ISSUE-33 (RDFa API WebIDL issues): Fix all WebIDL related issues regarding RDFa API [RDFa 1.1 API]
- ISSUE-32 (TypedLiteralConverter improvements): Improvements to TypedLiteralConverters [RDFa 1.1 API]
- ISSUE-31 (setMapping API location): Should setMapping be available from more than just the context? [RDFa 1.1 API]
- ISSUE-30 (clarify hasFeature support): The hasFeature() RDFa API call should be further clarified [RDFa 1.1 API]
- ISSUE-29 (DOM origin generalization): RDFa API .origin property needs to be more carefully specified [RDFa 1.1 API]
- Re: RDFa API FPWD published
- Re: WD-rdfa-in-html-20100624 DTD related issues