W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: RDFa Core sec 8.4 examples

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 16:33:29 +0200
Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <83E517BB-57E0-4B0B-A2BC-94B6686FC8FA@w3.org>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>

On May 15, 2012, at 16:23 , Toby Inkster wrote:

> On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:07:29 +0200
> Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> not supposed to change 
> Who enforces this? Is it possible to ask them for guidance as to
> whether such a change would be considered a minor editorial one?

The W3C processing rules enforce this. Proposed Rec means: the W3C membership passes a judgement on the document as they see it. Which means that document is, essentially, frozen. Changes can happen on typos, nothing else.

> Also, in <EA1C7E9A-9556-413B-AB3C-7449B41DE038@w3.org> you said of
> XML literals that, "there are significant changes under way in RDFa 1.1
> on this". Can we not slip in this dc:creator/bibo:authorList change at
> the same time?

I did not say that this would mean _any_ change on the current RDFa document. What I said was that these are the plans for RDF 1.1, ie, that this is good news for implementers. Maybe that will mean an errata on the document later, but not before RDF 1.1 is a standard anyway.


> -- 
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 14:30:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:31 UTC