Re: On @role and @class in RDFa: How do we get rdf:type?

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:29:59 +0200, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>  
wrote:
> The current state of play with @role and @class is that @role
> represents a predicate of xh:role, whilst @class represents a
> predicate of rdf:type. The main motivations were as follows:
>
>  * we need to do _something_ with @class, since it is widely used;

Bzz! False! Just because it is widely used is not a reason to use it. In  
fact my argument is that that is exactly the reason *not * to use it :-)  
People expect it to mean other things. Start with a clean sheet.

>  * we need an easy way of indicating rdf:type;

Agree.

>  * having a 'role' of 'toolbar' is not the same as _being_ a toolbar,  
> and so @role shouldn't
>    be used for rdf:type.

I know you think this, and I have considered your explanations of why, and  
I am still not convinced. I'm personally happy with @role being rdf:type.

Steven