- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 17:53:39 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
I've updated the document based on suggestions, and saved it Overview.html [2]. As RDF Concepts is explicit about the need for authors to include any @lang or @xmlns within the markup, the note about doing this has been removed. The reference to RDF-CONCEPTS provides sufficient detail for implementors, and doesn't need to be repeated here. Gregg [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-in-html/ Gregg Kellogg gregg@greggkellogg.net On Jan 1, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: > On Jan 1, 2013, at 4:28 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> Gregg, >> >> minor comments, in view of a (hopefully) Last Call publication. >> >> 1. Item #12 in section 3.1: There is a remark on whether @value will be retained or not. I guess, editorially, this should be a note after the bullet items, and maybe flag this item as an 'at risk feature'. > > +1 > >> 2. Item #13, HTML Literal, Note: is this correct? I mean, if we are talking about an HTML datatype, setting the prefixes would mean adding xmlns:XXX to the generated HTML literal. Isn't that a big no-no? Or are we talking about @prefix declarations to be put here? > > That's how the DT is defined in Concepts, but IMO, this should only be for XHTML. The purposes of node naming require the @xmlns; I don't think this is to maintain prefix state. If one of the purposes of rdf:HTML is to create a simpler, more usable type, I think we should consider not promoting @prefix and only promoting @xmlns for XHTML. > >> 3. Section 3.5.1, note on 'at risk': I wonder whether we should call out in the text that this feature has a strong relationship to @itemref... > > I don't think we should reference microdata at all. > >> 4. Section 3.5.1, first paragraph: I think the reference should not only be RDFa Core 1.1 but also the HTML5 extras in this document. > > +1 > >> 5. Section 3.4.2, first paragraph: I am not sure it is worth referring here to the entailment rules of RDF Semantics. First of all, it will tend to scare away people; but, in fact, the text here can/should be self-consistent anyway, so that referenced does not really add any new information. I propose to remove it. > > Okay, then we'll probably need to expand on the pattern notation. > >> 6. Section 3.4.2, did we say that a simple example would be useful here? > > Did you mean 3.5.1? There is no 3.4.2. If so, there are two examples in 3.5, which I think are adequate. > > Gregg > >> Note to ourselves: >> >> - add an example (or two) on the reference folding into the new version of the primer >> - we have to publish a new version of the RDFa namespace document, including rdfa:ref and rdfa:Prototype >> >> Thanks! >> >> Ivan >> >> >> On Dec 28, 2012, at 01:57 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: >> >>> Prior to the next conference call, I updated the HTML+RDFa spec to include some missing elements and added a "Reference Folding" section. That section, in particular, could benefit from some more editorial work. >>> >>> * Relevant to ISSUE-97, I added text to use the text content of a <time> element, if the element has no @datetime or @content attributes. >>> * Relevant to ISSUE-144, I added a "Reference Folding" section with a short description of the feature, and nomative language specified using Ivan's SPARQL UPDATE. >>> * Relevant to ISSUE-146, I added missing steps for head/body. >>> >>> Gregg Kellogg >>> gregg@greggkellogg.net >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-in-html/Overview-src.html >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/97 >>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/144 >>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/146 >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >> >> >> >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 1 January 2013 22:54:19 UTC