- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 20:50:12 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 05/28/2011 10:29 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote: > I don't quite get this. The language in the 31 March version is "have > not yet caught up" but your decision at the meeting says to remove the > words "at present" - and these words do not occur in the document. > > Let me know when you have made the change and I'll check then that it > says what I think it should. Jonathan, I screwed up. Here's what happened: I had misread your last call comment to the Working Group: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Apr/0126.html We had previously placed this language in the document: However, the media type registrations that govern the meaning of fragment identifiers (see section 3.5 of the URI specification [RFC3986], [RFC3023], and [RFC2854]) have not yet caught up with this practice. You wanted us to change it to this: Unfortunately, this practice is not at present covered by the media type registrations that govern the meaning of fragment identifiers (see section 3.5 of the URI specification [RFC3986], [RFC3023], and [RFC2854]). You then followed by saying this: This may be sufficient. "At present" is a bit of a weasel hinting at possible change but not predicting it. This wording may leave the reader wondering what to make of the contradiction - does it mean they shouldn't use fragids after all because they're out of spec? Which I took to mean as "maybe we should remove 'At present'". Thinking that is what you wanted, I instructed the WG to vote on it, and we chose to remove "At present". After speaking with the editor and re-reading your comment, it is now clear that was not what you were saying. The language that you specified is what is in the latest Editor's Draft: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html I think that's what you wanted. Please review the latest Editor's Draft and let us know if we have addressed your concern. If we have, we will strike the decision to remove the "at present" wording - keeping what is currently in the Editor's draft. -- 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 Monday, 30 May 2011 00:50:50 UTC