- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 11:11:34 +0100
- To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Hi Ivan, > I am not sure what you mean... Well...I said the other day that if we were to prevent bnodes from being created on <head> when @instanceof was present, we would have a way to give a document a 'type' without needing to use the RDF namespace. You replied that you didn't like 'exceptions'--in this case an exception to the bnode/@instanceof rule. I then said that in a sense you could say that there is no exception, because we already say that a value for @about is 'implied', so all we'd need to say is that it is this 'implied' @about that is used by @instanceof. So all I'm asking now is whether you are happy with that. :) > In any case, I think the precise statement is that @about="" is added to > <head> _unless_ the user adds it explicitly. Ie, if the user adds a, > say, @about="[_:x]" to <head>, than that will prevail... Sure, but the issue to clarify is how this interacts with @instanceof and @rel; at the moment a bnode is created if no @about attribute is present, so we need to be explicit that in the case of <head> an @about has actually been 'created'. The easiest way to do this would be for the schemas and DTDs to provide a default value for @about on <head>. (Although we would still need to put this into the processing prose.) Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation.
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 10:11:52 UTC