Details for the telecon today:
==
Thursday, February 14th, 2008
1600 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA
irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
Duration: 60 minutes
Scribe: Michael (Steven on deck)
==
Proposed agenda:
1) Action Items
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-
Here's the current status of everything that needs to be done in order
to be ready for Tuesday's SWD meeting:
[PENDING] Mark to update Syntax document based on Ed/Diego's feedback.
[PENDING] Manu to draft request to SWD stating that Syntax document is
ready for last call review.
[PENDIN
I added this whilst I was editing tonight. FWIW, it was not in there
because it is NOT in XHTML 2, and that is where this list came from.
Still, it is an error in the context of XHTML 1.1.
Manu Sporny wrote:
Ivan Herman wrote:
I was just surprised today to realise that the value of "st
Thanks for posting this, Manu. I've been booked solid in meetings since
yesterday's WG call so I appreciate you getting to this quickly.
At 12:20 PM 2/12/2008 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
>The RDFa last call working draft vote didn't happen today because there
>were a couple of things that we didn
Anyone aware of 'The Self-Describing Web' (Draft Tag Finding) [1]
(especially 4.3.1)?
Cheers,
Michael
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments
PS: Thanks to sbp
(http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2008-02-13.html#T19-26-24)
for pointing this one out!
Ivan Herman wrote:
> I was just surprised today to realise that the value of "stylesheet"
> does not appear as a reserved value of @rel/@rev. Is that on purpose, or
> simply an omission?
Looks like an omission since it's in the XHTML 1.1 spec for LinkTypes:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularizat
I was just surprised today to realise that the value of "stylesheet"
does not appear as a reserved value of @rel/@rev. Is that on purpose, or
simply an omission?
Ivan
--
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey
Hi Manu,
On 12/02/2008, Manu Sporny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ivan Herman wrote:
> > Mark Birbeck wrote:
> >> Why not? :) You are saying that there is an open issue, when there
> >> isn't. With whom else should I have a discourse? :)
> >
> > With Ben, who has not agreed yet with the test cas
Manu Sporny wrote:
Let us make it simple: the group
has to approve that test case. It hasn't yet.
Fine. But that's no different to any other test case.
Most of the test cases that I submitted last week have been, afaik,
agreed on; only two have raised issues in the group and are, hence,
und
