- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:38:42 +0100
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
On Dec 10, 2011, at 03:41 , Gregg Kellogg wrote: > Sorry, another issue in xhtml-rdfa-1.1.html: > > the term "up" is defined as <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#subsection>, presumably it should be <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#up>. Doh. The entry was in the table but the URI was wrong... Sorry. Settled. Ivan > > Gregg > > On Dec 9, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: > >> I am fixing this. Note that Ivan was confused below though. The >> documents are at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 and >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/xhtml-rdfa-1.1 >> >> On 12/9/2011 3:12 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> On Dec 9, 2011, at 01:55 , Gregg Kellogg wrote: >>> >>>> I'm having some issues with these documents. Firstly, what is the canonical URIs for these documents? The document at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1.html has an @about of http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1.html. Which is it intended to be? I note that Shane's used the dated version in the spec. >>> First of all, there is no dated version. The URI should be http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1 >>> >>> There is an about to the .html in the header to control those beloved stylesheet triples, the body's about is set to the real URI, b.t.w. After the latest resolution on the links my script does not generate those stylesheet triples any more, though... >>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1.html issues: >>>> >>>> * Line 5 has too many quotes, and prevents the rest of the document from parsing as XML, which I do for XHTML documents. >>> I am sorry!!! >>> >>> >>>> * the<br> on line 303 is not self-closing >>> Sorry again >>> >>> All fixed >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>>> Others look okay. >>>> >>>> Gregg >>>> >>>> On Dec 8, 2011, at 12:17 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >>>> >>>>> Guys, >>>>> >>>>> I have seen the resolution of last week on the link relations (and I am happy with the resolution). On the purely editorial level: >>>>> >>>>> - I have modified http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1.html to include three terms, namely describedby (that one was already there), license and role >>>>> - I have created a new http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/xhtml-rdfa-1.1.html file to list the XHTML+RDFa terms. I guess a reference to this default context should be added to the XHTML+RDFa language profile >>>>> - I have kept the URI http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/html-rdfa-1.1.html for now, but it does not define anything >>>>> >>>>> Is this ok? >>>>> >>>>> Ivan >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> ---- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Shane McCarron >> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. >> +1 763 786 8160 x120 >> > ---- 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 Saturday, 10 December 2011 09:41:45 UTC