Re: RDFa Last Call Comment: Better name than 'instanceof' is needed

Ben Adida wrote:
> 
> John Boyer wrote:
>>
>> But could you explain why the spelling "instanceof" is mandatory?
> 
> You mean why we chose @instanceof specifically? We went through a long 
> (and public) discussion about this. @rdftype was brought up and 
> rejected. Ideally, we would have used @type, but that was taken. And our 
> previous overloading of @class made a few people quite upset.

What about splitting the difference and going with @typeof? (or 
@type-of) It avoids the use of the name @type. It doesn't use the term 
"Instance". (which as John pointed out, has a different meaning in 
XForms) It also make it easy for new RDFa users with only a basic 
understanding of RDF to make the connection.

If you want to say that this <div> has a (rdf:)type of foaf:Person, then 
just say typeof="foaf:Person".

Is there any reason why that term wouldn't work?

Daniel E. Renfer