- From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:57:07 +0900
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, 2012-01-31 14:20 +0100: > On Jan 31, 2012, at 13:48 , Michael[tm] Smith wrote: > > If everything goes as planned, the spec might be updated... today? Cool. I hope the regexp in that other section can be updated too, then. > > That still disallows spaces in the reference part, though. > > That is intentional:-) Yeah my point is the regexp in that other section needs to match what the normative part of the spec says. Actually btw what is the normative definition of a CURIE? You spec has text "The lexical space of a CURIE is as defined in curie below.", where the word "curie" is hyperlink to part of the BNFy thing that follows. But that thing is preceded by text that says, "The general syntax of a CURIE can be summarized as follows:..." I'm looking for an assertion that states unambiguously what a valid CURIE is, and "can be summarized" .. would not seem to qualify. So where can I find the actual normative CURIE definition? --Mike -- Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/+
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 13:57:19 UTC