- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:54:07 +0100
- To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <9C1C60BC-41C0-47C1-94C3-660DF03DA061@w3.org>
On Jan 31, 2013, at 24:08 , Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ivan, > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> Guys, >> >> I have made some editing on the Primer, and a new draft is at >> >> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-primer/Overview-src.html > > Great; thanks! > >> most of the changes were the various error reports coming in since the last publication. I have also added a new section (2.1.3) on the property copying stuff (and also a note in section 2.1.4 that tackles a similar problem but using @resource). Comments please... > > Some remarks on section 2.1.3: > > * It should be made clear that (as of RDFa 1.1) this feature is only > available for HTML. Perhaps rephrasing "RDFa introduces the notion of > "Property copying" to alleviate this situation." into something like > "HTML+RDFa introduces the notion of "Property copying" to alleviate > this situation.", will do. Indeed. I did it. (This is a bit of an issue, by the way. My implementation, currently, implements this feature for all RDFa content and does not check for the HTML5 part. I guess it should... Should we add tests to our test suite to explicitly disallow this feature for, say, SVG+RDFa, or should we stay silent about this?) > > * Should the "at risk" warning be added until we've decided on this feature? > I was wondering about that. On the other hand, this is an editor's draft only; the question is when do we want to issue a new draft. If we want to issue it next week, in conjunction with the HTML+RDFa LC, then of course this should be added. If, however, we issue a new draft only when we go to CR or PR with HTML+RDFa, then it is o.k. not to mention this for now. > * The @resource used to declare the pattern is missing the octothorp > used in the @href:s. It should be: > > <div resource="#ccpattern" typeof="rdfa:Pattern"> Oops. Yes indeed! > > (I'd still personally prefer to use bnode-IDs instead of frag-IDs (and > thus @resource in the links) if I were to use pattern copying; mainly > because the patterns are "throw-away" resources. But as long as the > pattern names don't conflict with other resources, it doesn't really > matter. And granted, bnode-IDs are harder to grasp.) Exactly. Yes, I would also use bnode id-s and I thought of using those in the example, but we do not really talk about bnodes in the primer, so I decided not to go down that route in this section. It would do more harm than good imho. Thanks Niklas! Ivan > > Cheers, > Niklas > > >> Also: Gregg or Manu: is it worth the trouble changing respec to the newest version? What does it entail for the document? >> >> Thanks >> >> Ivan >> >> ---- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> > ---- 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 09:54:37 UTC