- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 14:07:51 +0100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:42:50 +0200 Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote: > On Friday, August 1, 2003, 1:12:04 PM, Dave wrote: > > DB> This was asked for ages ago and I drafted it but didn't send it out publically. > DB> It's in reply to a comment of Chris Lilley who asked why we didn't point > DB> to SVG's use of RDF metadata.: > > >>... I request (as an individual commentor) that you do > >>explicitly discuss embedding of RDF within SVG in your document. A new > >>section 10 "Using RDF/XML with SVG" would seem appropriate. I would be > >>happy to help draft such a section. > > Thanks for the positive reply. I see that > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0020.html > suggested asking me to prepare such a section, but unfortunately did > not copy me, so i was unaware of this discussion until today. Yes, that was my fault - I lost the issue and forgot about the draft. Sorry. > May I assume from todays message that the intention is to add this > section 10? Yes, I've already had the RDF Core WG's goahead for this. > DB> -- Chris Lilley, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2003Mar/0075.html > > DB> which Brian forwarded in April > DB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0020.html > > DB> There is always scope to expand the text below futher however my only > DB> real issue is which SVG version(s) to mention. Should I mention SVG 1.0 > DB> and 1.1 since both are recommendations? > > Sure, point to 1.1 as well, it says the same as 1.0 does. 1.0 was > where the facility was introduced. 1.1 merely modularises 1.0. Will do. > The draft text looks good and its inclusion would satisfy my requirements. Great, thanks Dave
Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 09:10:16 UTC