- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:43:52 -0500
- To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Guus, As Ralph just mentioned, this is a question for the HTML WG. That said, here's my two cents on how this should be released. In general, I don't see any issue with this, as long as it is made clear that RDFa is not 100% tied to CURIEs. I worry that some folks don't like CURIEs and may use it to question RDFa as a whole. It's important to point out that CURIEs are meant to solve a general problem that RDFa and many other specs have. If people are not willing to solve the problem, then RDFa will live on in a slightly crippled way, just like other specs that are forced to used QNames. -Ben Guus Schreiber wrote: > > Ben et al., > > We've received a request from the TAG to make the most recent work on > CURIEs available for public access. It is currently in a > member-confidential area. I can see no reason why it shouldn't be, so I > propose we remedy this situation asap. Is this OK with you? > > Guus
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:43:30 UTC