W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > April 2008

Re: @resource (was Re: Renaming target attribute of submission)

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:48:48 +0100
Message-ID: <a707f8300804290948i1788995aw5de0227d92796051@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John Boyer" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>, "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>

Hi John,

I have to disagree with you. :)


> This attribute refactoring seems to be getting a little out of hand, eh?

Well...ok...I don't disagree with that bit.


> The concern with 'target', which I still don't entirely agree is a problem
> but will let rest, is that it could be reused in the future to mean
> something different *within the submission element*.

That's not the issue. The problem is that @target is defined in XHTML
modularisation. So if we want XForms to work with M12N we need to be
careful about attribute clashes. (And I believe we agreed a long time
ago that having XForms work as an M12N-compatible module was a
desirable goal.)


> RDFa injects metadata on an element from the outside, which appears to be
> different than what happens with *local* attributes.
>
> RDFa needs to have a prefixing methodology so that its contributions can be
> distinguished from the local attributes of an element.  This can be done
> with actual XML namespaces or, in scenarios where XML namespaces are not...
> preferred, by pseudo-namespacing with a dash-separated prefix such as rdfa-

RDFa is a 'first class citizen' of XHTML M12N, and as such is part of
the XHTML namespace. It's essentially part of XHTML, and is already
being used by a number of different (big) organisations in XHTML
documents. So again, we're left with the same point as before--if we
want XForms to fit into this ecosystem, we need to watch out for
clashes.

(And I have argued before that we should aim to make XForms a 'first
class citizen' of M12N, too; when working on M12N with Shane, we made
some substantial changes to the M12N schemas in order to accomadate
this.)


> The resource attribute is a case in point for why it is RDFa that needs
> modification.  XForms 1.1 is already in CR, and the implementability of the
> attribute when named resource is not in question.  But more importantly, we
> used the name resource for consistency with the load action, which has been
> part of a W3C Recommendation since 2003.  Still more, we got the name from
> XLink.  Surely, the name in XForms should be allowed to stand...

That may be true, and I guess you could raise this as a last call
comment on RDFa. But whilst I argued your case in relation to your
last call comment about @instanceof -- even though I disagreed with
you :) -- you'd be on your own on this one. The reason is that I think
the RDF use of 'resource' is simply so fundamental that I can't see it
being changed in RDFa.

I agree it's a shame that this hasn't come up before, particularly
considering that XHTML 2 contains RDFa and XForms, which therefore
means that it contains @resource twice...but none of us spotted that.
:(

Regards,

Mark

-- 
 Mark Birbeck

 mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
 http://www.x-port.net | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

 x-port.net Ltd. is registered in England and Wales, number 03730711
 The registered office is at:

 2nd Floor
 Titchfield House
 69-85 Tabernacle Street
 London
 EC2A 4RR
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 16:49:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:47 UTC