- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 19:08:48 -0400
- To: "Tom Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>, "public-xg-lld" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Tom, The last sentence didn't make sense to me, so I reworded it. RDFa can presumably represent anything that RDF can, so the intention was probably to accommodate the other options. I whittled it down a bit. Double check to see if it still seems reasonable: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevant _Technologies&diff=6160&oldid=6159 BTW, thanks for all your editorial efforts! Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Baker > Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 6:31 PM > To: public-xg-lld > Subject: "Microformats, Microdata, and RDFa" - attn: Jeff and Peter! > > Some clarifications to [1]: > > -- "Schema.org" is the name (not "http://schema.org"). Ditto > "Schema.RDFS.org." > > Questions: > > -- "Though in principle extensible, the microdata schemas would require > a lot of extension..."? > Was the more cryptic: "Though _it_ is in principle extensible _it_ > would require..." > > -- Did not understand: "Modulo bugs in the search engines' parsers it > is even > possible to do both in the same web page." Took this to mean: > > But for bugs in the search engines' parsers, it should even be > possible > to do both in the same Web page. > > I would appreciate a careful look at the diff [1]... > > Tom > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevan > t_Technologies&diff=6158&oldid=6157 > >
Received on Sunday, 4 September 2011 23:09:37 UTC