- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:23:50 -0500
- To: Stefan Schumacher <stefan@duckflight.de>
- CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Jan 29, 2013, at 8:23 AM, Stefan Schumacher <stefan@duckflight.de> wrote: > Some more suggestions: > > 3.3 Specifying the Language for a Literal > Now: > RDFa Core 1.1 allows for the current language to be specified by the > Host Language. > Suggestion: > According to RDFa Core 1.1 the current language *may* be specified by > the host language. > Note: > The RFC2119-may is used in Core 7.5, rule 4, so it would be closer to Core. Fixed. > Now: > In order for RDFa Processors to conform to this specification, they must > use the mechanism described in The lang and xml:lang attributes section > of the ... > Suggestion: > In order to conform to this specification, RDFa processors must use the > mechanism described in *section* The lang and xml:lang attributes of > the ... > Note: > I wrote processor in small caps, it is written RDFa Processor in several > instances. Since it is used as a general description not as a name, I > would prefer small caps. Fixed. > And position of section changed. Did you propose moving this section? That wasn't clear. > Now: > If an author is editing an HTML fragment and is unsure of the final > encapsulating MIME type for his/her markup, it is recommended that the > author specify both @lang and @xml:lang where the value in both > attributes is exactly the same. > Suggestion: > If the final encapsulating MIME type for an HTML fragment is not decided > on while editing, it is recommended to specify both ... . > Note: > Little shorter and it solves (my) the problem with author her/his, what > is making a mess in a translation sometimes. Fixed. > Next chunk in a while > Stefan Great suggestions, thanks. Gregg
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 20:41:06 UTC