- From: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:34:24 +0100
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 22:34:43 UTC
Hi Shane, thanks once more! 2011-01-19 23:16 Shane McCarron: > Well... you should in no circumstances cite the CURIE Note. It's dead. I had actually thought so, but the recent date 2010-12-16 confused me. (But now I guess that's merely the date when the almost-dead CURIE draft was "archived" as a Note…) Anyway, the CURIE Note should probably have a pointer to RDFa Syntax 1.0 and RDFa Core 1.1, referring to them as more appropriate sources of information. Just in case someone accidentally stumbles upon the CURIE Note. > The RDFa Core document is a work in progress, but if you are referencing > RDFa 1.1 anyway I think it is safe to talk about RDFa Core (and > XHTML+RDFa). You might also note that the only normative definition > TODAY is RDFa Syntax if your audience cares about such things. No worries about that – my audience does not care. Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701 Semantic Publication workshop, May 29 or May 30, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece Submission deadline February 28, http://SePublica.mywikipaper.org
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 22:34:43 UTC