- From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:39:02 +0100
- To: "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: "W3C RDFa WG" <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Dear Jeni, With respect to your comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jan/0044.html which initially got recorded as http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/75, the RDFa WG split your comment into three parts - so you will be getting three responses to it. This response is about your editorial comment that information on CURIEs is split over three places, and that they should be merged. * Section 3.8 Compact URIs (under 'RDF Terminology') * Section 6 CURIE Syntax Definition * Section 7.4 CURIE and URI Processing The WG discussed this [http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-01-27#ISSUE__2d_79__3a__Editorial_merging_sections_on_CURIEs], and decided not to make the change. The reasoning was that there needs to be a section on CURIEs that is independent of RDFa (to allow other specs to use them without any RDFa baggage), and that section 3.8 is non-normative anyway. The conclusion was therefore to leave them as-is. If you have any problems with this decision, please let us know as soon as possible. If you can live with the decision, a note to say so would help, but is not required. Many thanks for your comments. Best wishes, Steven Pemberton For the RDFa group.
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 15:39:45 UTC