AnswerToTB1

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 16:09, 28 May 2010 by Msporny (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

To: tbaker@tbaker.de
CC: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Comment response] To Tom Baker

Dear Tom,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010May/0089.html>
on the RDFa 1.1 drafts.

The issues you raised are simply our mistake. Ie, there is no hidden agenda in not using http://purl.org/dc/terms/ in the document, simply our own sloppiness...

The internal draft for RDFa1.1 Core uses http://purl.org/dc/terms/ everywhere now, and this will be the case for the published version.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-rdfa-wg@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,

Ivan

on behalf of the RDFa Working Group



CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.

PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL