W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > July 2013

Re: PROPOSAL: Add prefixes to RDFa Core initial context

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 07:20:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFqqnK=2z7GdRUhuD46Pgqd9VthiVu8uAVDHB-UZo2-qwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: St├ęphane 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, St├ęphane 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

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
(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)

Received on Saturday, 20 July 2013 06:20:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:34 UTC