Ben Adida wrote:
> please do have the telecon anyways, and try to hash out as much
> of our issues as possible.
I'll be there... Mark, there are a couple of questions that I have
regarding the rules you're proposing, namely:
- What does @instanceof apply to? (is it only @about, or whatever the
Hi all,
The mild cold I've had for a few days just took a turn for the worse
today, and it looks unlikely that I'll be in any shape to get up early
for our telecon tomorrow.
However, please do have the telecon anyways, and try to hash out as much
of our issues as possible.
==
Thursday,
Ivan, can I have your autograph? :)
SPARQL Graduates to W3C Recommendation
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/08/01/16/198205.shtml
-- manu
PS: That's not to say that you weren't famous before your presentations
were Slashdotted :)
--
Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc
XHTML 2 is a spec the XHTML 2 Working Group is currently developing. It
has nothing to do with the RDFa task force, except that I assume the
output of this task force will somehow get folded into that effort.
Let's (please) ignore XHTML 2 for the purposes of this discussion.
The XHTML 2 Wo
Ben Adida wrote:
>
> Here's the markup I've used to justify @about as subject:
>
>
>
>
Of course I meant "@src as subject", rather than "@about as subject".
-Ben
Manu,
I do not have a problem with this; your point (in another mail) on the
extra microformat values is well taken...
The only additional point here is: the
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#
might be a living document; ie, the XHTML working group (or anybody else
'owning' this document)
Hey all,
Mark is working on the spec with caveats for the points we're still
discussing, but we need to keep the discussions *going*, as Manu and
others have correctly pointed out, until we've resolved the issues.
While talking with folks at CC, I noticed an issue with the combination
of my pro
Shane McCarron wrote:
>
> But this document (rdfa-syntax) IS the XHTML spec.
Huh? I'm sure it's included *in* the XHTML2 spec, but it must also stand
on its own since it will go to last call on its own for RDFa-in-XHTML1.1
purposes. Or am I not understanding your point?
> It also makes us and o
Ben Adida wrote:
Certainly, in the RDFa spec, we should "outsource" the definition of the
reserved words to the XHTML spec.
But this document (rdfa-syntax) IS the XHTML spec. It contains the
module definition. I mean, we can pull that back out into a separate
document if you want. That
Manu Sporny wrote:
> Then how does this sound for a solution:
>
> 1. Triples are not generated for any non-prefixed value in
>@rel/@rev/@property that are not defined in the
>http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# namespace.
>
> 2. The RDFa syntax document should _not_ list the allowed prop
Ivan Herman wrote:
> I think the issue is how to control that. If we add a finite set of
> 'allowed' values into the RDFa document, this list will become outdated
> at the moment when the XHTML group decides to add new values to their
> list of @rel. (And you are right, new, registered profiles mi
Shane McCarron wrote:
>
> I think you are forgetting, Ivan, that this IS an XHTML 2 working group
> document. The list in the document is the definitive list from the
> XHTML 2 Working Group. We are not planning to change it. If there are
> items missing, those will surface during last call an
Ivan Herman wrote:
> Hence, what I propose is to ignore this problem:-) To be more specific,
> what I propose is that:
>
> 1. the ":foo" and "foo" would have the same meaning when used in @rel,
> @rev, (and @property?)
> 2. They would generate URIs in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#
> nam
I think you are forgetting, Ivan, that this IS an XHTML 2 working group
document. The list in the document is the definitive list from the
XHTML 2 Working Group. We are not planning to change it. If there are
items missing, those will surface during last call and we should add
them. Once
Ben Adida wrote:
I still think the right solution is to generate nothing when it's not a
reserved word, *because* of HTML existing use, and I just don't see why
that's so difficult.
Ben,
I think the issue is how to control that. If we add a finite set of
'allowed' values into the RDFa doc
Ivan Herman wrote:
> Let us also realize that issue of the @rel="foo", ie, the issue of
> unwanted triples is, in fact, not specific to this case.
Indeed, although it is more likely that someone would write rel="foo"
without knowing about RDFa than someone writing rel="foaf:foo".
There are two a
Mark, Ben,
this is a reply to this thread, and not this particular mail (that is
why I removed the body of the mail, but left the subject:-)
First of all, I agree with Manu that we have much more pressing issues
with RDFa, so we should avoid getting into long discussions. But I also
saw Shan
Hi Shane/Ben,
Let's not get too melodramatic, talking about deal-breakers, 'evil'
unwanted triples (that's nothing to do with this debate!) and such
like. We know we all want @rel="next" to work, and no-one has ever
said they want otherwise.
But we put the issue onto the back-burner before becau
18 matches
Mail list logo
