- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 22:37:03 -0500
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
And it is.... do you have alternate wording? On 10/3/2010 3:11 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: > On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 13:21:27 -0400 > Manu Sporny<msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > >> Please comment in 7 days from this post if you object to this >> proposal. If there are no objections within 7 days, ISSUE-17 will be >> closed. > I think there's still an issue, but an issue at the PFWG side. > > Namely, that the current wording of the role attribute draft makes it > seem like it's placing normative requirements on XHTML+RDFa and > HTML+RDFa processors. > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 03:38:28 UTC