Re: Three RDFa-related W3C Proposed (Edited) Recommendations
I've only quickly glanced at those, and I haven't followed those discussions at all, I have to admit. Are there any practical consequences for gecko/firefox? It doesn't look like it would, in particular when looking at the reference implementations being all on top of html platforms. Axel On 7/17/13 1:12 AM, L. David Baron wrote: The W3C has released three RDFA-related documents, one proposed recommendation: HTML+RDFa 1.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-html-rdfa-20130625/ and two proposed edited recommendations (which contain only editorial changes): RDFa 1.1 Core: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PER-rdfa-core-20130625/ XHTML+RDFa 1.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PER-xhtml-rdfa-20130625/ There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of which Mozilla is one) open until Tuesday, July 23 (one week from today). If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the review, or if you think Mozilla should voice support or opposition to the specification, please say so in this thread. (I'd note, however, that there have been many previous opportunities to make comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first time at this stage.) There was one formal objection earlier in the process, whose history is documented in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2013Jan/0057.html -David ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Three RDFa-related W3C Proposed (Edited) Recommendations
On 7/16/2013 7:12 PM, L. David Baron wrote: The W3C has released three RDFA-related documents, one proposed recommendation: HTML+RDFa 1.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-html-rdfa-20130625/ If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the review, or if you think Mozilla should voice support or opposition to the specification, please say so in this thread. (I'd note, however, that there have been many previous opportunities to make comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first time at this stage.) Reading through the spec, it appears that it doesn't substantively change HTML parsing behavior unless HTML+RDFa document conformance is required. As far as I know, we do not intend to implement this specification and therefore have no reason to comment on it. --BDS ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Three RDFa-related W3C Proposed (Edited) Recommendations
The W3C has released three RDFA-related documents, one proposed recommendation: HTML+RDFa 1.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-html-rdfa-20130625/ and two proposed edited recommendations (which contain only editorial changes): RDFa 1.1 Core: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PER-rdfa-core-20130625/ XHTML+RDFa 1.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PER-xhtml-rdfa-20130625/ There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of which Mozilla is one) open until Tuesday, July 23 (one week from today). If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the review, or if you think Mozilla should voice support or opposition to the specification, please say so in this thread. (I'd note, however, that there have been many previous opportunities to make comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first time at this stage.) There was one formal objection earlier in the process, whose history is documented in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2013Jan/0057.html -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
