Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

LC-Comments

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction

This page contains a summary of all Last Call comments submitted to the RDF Web Applications Working Group, formerly known as the RDFa Working Group, during the First Last Call and Second Last Call periods.

Issue Description Commenter Changes Status Satisfied
46 Should plain literals that match fully qualified IRIs be automatically converted to IRIs Harry Halpin None Closed Unresponsive
60 New wording for XMLLiteral context preservation? Gregg Kellogg None Closed Yes
62 Clarify the processing order of @prefix as left-to-right or right-to-left Ivan Herman Substantiative Closed Yes
63 Case-insensitive term matching is non-deterministic at times Toby Inkster None Closed Yes
65 Feedback from Michael Hausenblas on RDFa Core 1.1 Michael Hausenblas Editorial Closed Yes
66 Last Call comments from Ian Hickson for RDFa Core 1.1 Ian Hickson Substantiative Closed Unresponsive
67 RDFa Core 1.1 LC comments from Henri Sivonen Henri Sivonen Editorial/Substantiative Closed Unresponsive
68 Last Call comments from Harry Halpin Harry Halpin Split into ISSUEs 46, 77, 78 Closed N/A
69 Should the xml and xmlns prefixes be pre-defined in the default profile? Gregg Kellogg None Closed Yes
70 RDFa Core 1.1 LC comments about versioning from Jeni Tennison Jeni Tennison Editorial/Substantiative Closed Unresponsive
71 RDFa Core 1.1 LC comments from Shelley Powers Shelley Powers Editorial Closed Yes
72 Formalize XML+RDFa document conformance in RDFa Core Ivan Herman, Manu Sporny Substantiative Closed Yes, Yes
73 The RDFa WG needs to determine how each RDFa Profile document is managed Harry Halpin, Toby Inkster, RDF WG Members Substantiative Closed Unresponsive, Yes, Yes
74 Host Language Conformance Jeni Tennison Substantiative Closed Unresponsive
75 Specification Structure Jeni Tennison Split into Issues 79, 80, 81 Closed Unresponsive w/ split
76 RDFa Profiles Jeni Tennison Editorial/Substantiative Closed Unresponsive
77 Adding in extra blank node default subjects Harry Halpin None Closed Unresponsive
78 Should we have default prefixes and terms for host languages Harry Halpin Substantiative Closed Unresponsive
79 Editorial - Integrate CURIE information. Triage of Issue 75 - Part 1 Jeni Tennison None Closed Unresponsive
80 Editorial - Integrate attribute information. Triage of Issue 75 - Part 2 Jeni Tennison Editorial Closed Unresponsive
81 Make declarative definition normative, procedural definition informative. Triage of Issue 75 - Part 3 Jeni Tennison Editorial Closed Unresponsive
82 Can RDFa attributes be namespaced? RDFa WG, Steven Pemberton Substantiative Closed Yes, Unresponsive
83 CURIEs are dangerous when used in combination with @vocab and @about Nathan Rixham Substantiative Closed Yes (+0.5)
84 The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic Jonathan Rees Editorial Closed Followed-up in ISSUE-94
87 IRIs vs URI References Mischa Tuffield Editorial Closed  ?
89 Decide what word we want to use to refer to the concept of RDFa terms - 'term' or 'alias' Nathan Rixham None Closed  ?
90 CURIEorURI Value Space Collisions Niklas Lindström None Closed  ?
94 Formulation on fragid in RDFa Core Jonathan Rees Editorial Closed  ?

XHTML+RDFa 1.1

Issue Description Commenter Changes Status Satisfied
64 Add rel=describedby to the XHTML vocab Toby Inkster Editorial Closed Yes
Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/index.php?title=LC-Comments&oldid=873"