CR Comment: comment on section 2.1 @name

Raised by:
Ben Adida
Opened on:
I wonder it is misleading to mention @name in section 2.1 of the
Syntax document, which implies that @name generates a predicate in
RDFa. AFAIK, @name in meta element should be just ignored in RDFa.
Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-125: CR Comment: comment on section 2.1 @name (from on 2008-08-14)
  2. meeting record: 2008-08-14 RDFa telecon (from on 2008-08-14)
  3. meeting record: 2008-08-21 RDFa Task Force telecon (from on 2008-08-21)

Related notes:

2008-08-14: Proposed response in

2008-08-21: Commentor accepts the group's response

2008-08-27: ACTION: Accept

2008-08-27: RESOLUTION: Thank you for catching this. You are absolutely correct, @name has not meaning for RDFa. We will remove that attribute from the list in section 2.1. That text was likely left-over from an earlier draft of the document.

2008-08-27: CHANGE-TYPE: Editorial

2008-08-27: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: Accept