Official RDFa Response: ISSUE-94: Formulation on fragid in RDFa Core

Jonathan,

This is an official response from the RDF Web Applications Working
Group, formerly the RDFa Working Group, on your 2nd Last Call comment
for RDFa Core 1.1. The issue is being tracked here:

ISSUE-94: Formulation on fragid in RDFa Core
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/94

Previously, the TAG had informally noted a concern about the RDFa Core
1.1 document. The concern was that the use of fragment identifiers,
while recognized as a good thing, was not clearly explained in the media
type registrations. We had placed language into the document noting that
the use of fragment identifiers to identify Semantic Web subjects was
kosher, but the media type registrations had "not yet caught up".

You had mentioned that the "not yet caught up" wording makes it sound
like somebody is currently working on updating the media type
registrations. You also noted that nobody had, in fact, taken on this
work. You then proposed that we change the language slightly to not
imply that the work was currently, or predicted to be performed.

We had a short discussion about this on one of the telecons and decided
to strike the language that the TAG found to be problematic. The
decision is recorded here:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-05-12#ISSUE__2d_94__3a__Formulation_on_fragid_in_RDFa_Core

The editor will integrate this language into the document shortly. Since
this is a response to a 2nd Last Call comment, please make sure to let
us know whether or not this addresses the concern to your satisfaction.
Thank you for taking the time to review the RDFa Core 1.1 specification.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released
http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/05/05/payswarm-sandbox/

Received on Sunday, 29 May 2011 01:48:48 UTC