Re: Official Response to ISSUE-94 from RDF Web Apps WG

To acceptability and beyond!

Thanks much
Jonathan

(note new email address rees@mumble.net - the cc: might not get
through to the WG list if I'm not resubscribed, which I think I'm not)

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 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 Sunday, 29 January 2012 13:21:10 UTC