- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 08:59:59 +0100
- To: RDF Web Applications Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi guys, here I am again... Although not yet in full force. But back gradually... My opinion on this: - there should be no separate conformance for RDFa Lite - actually: I think the full conformance section in the RDFa Lite document (which, strangely enough, does _not_ define a separate conformance level in the first place) should be removed from that document. Conformance is defined in RDFa Core... My 2 cents Ivan On Dec 8, 2011, at 02:10 , RDF Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > ISSUE-124 (RDFa Lite Document Conformance): Should HTML + RDFa Lite and HTML+RDFa Document Conformance requirements be different? [RDFa 1.1 Lite] > > http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/124 > > Raised by: Manu Sporny > On product: RDFa 1.1 Lite > > Raised by Paul Cotton: > > Paul Cotton raises the question about whether or not we should provide two levels of document conformance for RDFa in HTML, or just one. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Dec/0040.html > > The question of a subset of attributes creating a new conformance class also came up, but we had decided to not have two conformance classes based on a subset of RDFa attributes. We should verify that this is still true. > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 08:00:39 UTC