- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:12:16 +0000
- To: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
- cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
>>>Dave Hodder said:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:51:17PM +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > You made a last call comment "WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123: RDF/XML
> > with HTML and XHTML" captured in
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#hodder-01
> >
> > The RDFCore WG has resolved
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0068.html
> >
> > to accept this comment.
>
> Dave,
>
> Thank you. Subject to agreement between the HTML and RDF Core WGs, this
> decision is acceptable to me. ...
<snip/>
The RDF Core WG has already agreed to this response and as far as the
process goes, the HTML WG does not need to formally agree since it
was raised by you:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0221.html
I already asked the chair of the HTML WG informally about the
appropriate values here and got a response:
[[Indeed, it should be 'alternate' not 'alternative'. 'Meta' is fine.]]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0116.html
and both values ('alternate' and 'meta') will remain recommended.
The example I will add only demonstrates one of them, alternate.
The ongoing discussions of potential future work on HTML and RDF
will be continuing, of course, outside of this issue.
Cheers
Dave
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 11:13:20 UTC