- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:37:06 -0500
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: RDFa Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>
I sent a formal response to Issue 72 weeks ago - on 9 March. On 3/23/2011 9:11 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 03/23/2011 09:49 PM, Nathan wrote: >> can we add this to the agenda for tomorrow? > Sure, let's cover it first thing. We'll need to review it to make sure > we can enter a 2nd LC... as well as ISSUE-72 (we don't have a formal > response for that yet, but probably don't need one since it was created > by the group). > >> RDFa Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> ISSUE-87 (LC2 - Mischa Tuffield): IRIs vs URI References [2nd LC >>> Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/87 >>> >>> Raised by: Manu Sporny >>> On product: 2nd LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1 >>> >>> Mischa Tuffield has asked us to make sure that the terminology used in >>> the RDFa Core 1.1 specification matches that used in the other >>> Semantic Web documents (like SPARQL, RDF and the soon-to-be TURTLE >>> specification): >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Mar/0066.html > -- manu > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 02:37:50 UTC