- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 07:20:04 +0100
- To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>, W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
On 29 March 2013 12:02, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> Done. See also >> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/29/new-prefixes-added-to-the-rdfa-core-initial-context/ >> >> I have put up a G+ item (cc-d it to some of you), and tweeted it; it would >> be good to beat the bushes for implementers. Is there a way to send out a >> reference through rdfa.info? >> >> pyRdfa has the new prefixes already. Is it necessary to extend the test >> cases? > > > A testing for these prefixes would be a good way to make sure all > implementations are up to date and have these new prefixes. I'll work on > such new test. We are updating our implementation. As part of that, I've been asked what the plans are for test cases. Did one ever get added? Related question: does W3C state its intentions anywhere regarding management of the Initial Context? Masahide Kanzaki also raised this question when I saw him in Tokyo recently: the context is quite an integral part of any modern RDFa parser. It would help if parser writers had some good mechanisms for getting notified of changes. Perhaps RSS-like feeds from the Initial Context page. It's a pity http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/ doesn't seem to work any more. Or optional low-traffic mailing list. Or 'what's new' markup in the page. Currently the page is signed by Ivan, but is inconsistent: "Updated: 2012-11-21 $Date: 2013-03-29 10:51:55 $" i.e. it shows that something happened in March but doesn't say what. The closest I can find to a public history is http://web.archive.org/web/20130407124329*/http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1.html (although I know it is in CVS behind the scenes). Similarly with tests, if there is a new relevant test, that would be great to know about in some systematic way. I guess the main thing is to be clear how often it is likely to be updated. Maybe we can just say to check back 'every n months'; 3? 6? And that the goal is to minimise improvements. (I'm thinking about similar issues for schema.org currently fwiw) Dan
Received on Saturday, 20 July 2013 06:20:31 UTC