rent object resource] to be set to a non-null
value has been removed. By removing this step, we ensure that the list
of incomplete triples can be created correctly.
Please note the changes in Step #5:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080
There has also been text added to the Syntax document to outline the
importance of paying attention to whitespace normalization in your
application code:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080218/rdfa-syntax-diff.html#processorconf
> --
>
> Note/comment on our (pere
I am sure that Manu will send out something more formal, but as Mark
implied that updated draft is available at
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080218/ - note that this
is still diff marked against the 0125 draft
so you can see what all the changes are that resulted from your
Hi Diego,
Very well spotted on both counts. You are exactly right on both
issues. You'll be pleased to hear, though, that Ivan spotted both of
these problems earlier today, and so I believe I have already
addressed your issues. Shane is about to publish another draft for you
to check that you are
Hi Manu. Sorry for taking a while to reply, I've been double-checking
the new rules.
I'm happy with the changes made in response to my two 2nd round
comments. In particular, the text added in response to the second one
is very welcome!
However, I've just discovered two new potential iss
Thank you for the clarification, Manu, I just wanted to be sure.
Cheers,
El 18/02/2008, a las 17:30, Manu Sporny escribió:
Diego Berrueta wrote:
Section 5.5.9 states that anything with a blank datatype should be
treated as a plain literal. The only time that you do not recurse is
when the ty
Diego Berrueta wrote:
>> Section 5.5.9 states that anything with a blank datatype should be
>> treated as a plain literal. The only time that you do not recurse is
>> when the type is rdf:XMLLiteral.
>>
>> We do not have a unit test that tests this particular functionality yet,
>> but we will add
Forget my remark about rdf:type... It could be done without it:
Coordination Group
The slightly tricky thing is that when there is no @rel/@rev, than the
priority of @href is 'higher' than @instanceof, whereas if there is a
@rel, then @href, @instanceof cannot be used with @rel. By
Shane,
I've reviewed the changes and I think that all my comments have been
properly addressed. However, I kindly ask for further clarification to
one of my points below.
Note that I'll send a separate email regarding my second round of
comments.
El dom, 17-02-2008 a las 15:33 -0600, Shane McCa
