As per our action item, we have produced an updated Editor's draft of
rdfa-syntax. It is available at
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070918/ and there is a
version diff-marked from the previous editor's draft.
I look forward to your comments.
--
Shane P
ent regarding duplication
between abstract and intro, I took out the abstract altogether. It seems
to me that, with such a short document, an abstract might be overkill.
Let me know if you feel it is missing, even after reading the first
couple of paragraphs.
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20070918/
-Ben
Yes. We are defining XHTML 1.1 + RDFa at this point. XHTML 2 working
group has also defined a module that can be used to produce other XHTML
Family markup languages with RDFa.
Karl Dubost wrote:
Shane McCarron (18 sept. 2007 - 10:54) :
It fits nicely, and rounds out the document with a
Shane McCarron (18 sept. 2007 - 10:54) :
It fits nicely, and rounds out the document with a cohesive
component that creates our new markup language XHTML+RDFa and can
also be used in other host languages (separate issue, but important
to the XHTML Working Group).
What are the requiremen
After implementing my action item to set up a conformance section, and
the follow on action to move the language definition into the document,
I determined that there was really little need for a separate xhtml-rdfa
document that defines only the module. I have migrated the module
definition
