- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:50:38 +0000
- To: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>
- Cc: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, "Martin Hepp (UniBW)" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Brian Suda <brian.suda@gmail.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>, Andreas Radinger <andreas.radinger@unibw.de>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, www-archive@w3.org
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 15:50 +1000, Renato Iannella wrote: > Ok guys - hopefully this is *really* it....please review: > > http://spin.nicta.org.au/vCardRDF/vcard-rdf-20091201.html > http://spin.nicta.org.au/vCardRDF/ns2009-final.rdf > > I've updated the Examples in Section 4 and 5 (rdfa new).... > > Comments/Feedback.... You say "final final" but still ask for feedback! Will you never learn?! ;-) The RDF/XML snippets in the spec include a bunch of extra whitespace - presumably for clarity. Whitespace is considered significant in RDF/XML, so perhaps it's not a good idea to include it in the examples. Clarity could be retained using a modicum of syntax highlighting - e.g. bolding literals and resource URIs. The e-mail address in the RDFa example would perhaps be nicer as: <a rel="v:email" href="mailto:corky@example.com">corky@example.com</a> This is likely to be closer to how it could be used in real life. Also in the RDFa, I don't see much value in including the rdfs:Resource types. Given that rdfs:Resource is essentially the base class of everything (there is nothing which is not an rdfs:Resource), it doesn't add any information and only serves to complicate the example. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 12:51:21 UTC