- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:46:35 -0500
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jonathan, Thank you for your public feedback on the RDFa 1.1 documents. This is an official response from the RDF Web Apps WG to your issue before we enter the 3rd Last Call for the RDFa 1.1 work this coming Tuesday. The Last Call will last for 3 weeks, so there is still time for you to discuss your concerns if we have not fully addressed them. Your issue was tracked here: ISSUE-94: Formulation on fragid in RDFa Core https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/94 Explanation of Issue -------------------- You wanted us to discuss the fragment identifier problem more explicitly in the RDFa Core 1.1 specification. Previsouly, we adopted the changes but sent a link to the wrong time-stamped specification. Here is the link to the current language: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2012/WD-rdfa-core-20120131/#s_Syntax_overview Working Group Decision ---------------------- We adopted language proposed by the WWW TAG, specifically Jeni Tennison's language here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Jan/0078.html Feedback -------- Since this is an official Working Group response to your issue, we would appreciate it if you responded to this e-mail and let us know if the decision made by the group is acceptable to you as soon as possible. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarm vs. OpenTransact Shootout http://manu.sporny.org/2011/web-payments-comparison/
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 17:47:07 UTC