following up on ISSUE-109, @cite

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

following up on ISSUE-109, @cite

Ben Adida-2


Laurens,

I wanted to check in with you regarding our resolution of ISSUE-109:

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/109

Specifically, here's our resolution text:

"We considered @cite but realized that many other attributes would then
require RDFa interpretation and that doing so is not simple. We defer
this issue to a future version of RDFa."

Is this acceptable from your point of view?

-Ben

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: following up on ISSUE-109, @cite

Laurens Holst-2
Ben Adida schreef:

> Laurens,
>
> I wanted to check in with you regarding our resolution of ISSUE-109:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/109
>
> Specifically, here's our resolution text:
>
> "We considered @cite but realized that many other attributes would
> then require RDFa interpretation and that doing so is not simple. We
> defer this issue to a future version of RDFa."
>
> Is this acceptable from your point of view?
Yes, I agree with that.


~Grauw

--
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.


lholst.vcf (196 bytes) Download Attachment
smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment