XML Syntax Issues, xsi:type vs rif:type

Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> writes:
> Boley, Harold wrote:
> 
> >> Why are you using "type" (eg rif:type) instead of xsi:type there?
> > 
> > For uniformity reasons: rif:type is more general than xsi:type.
> > For example, we also have rif:type="rif:local".
> 
> That's not a problem, xsi:type can be used to refer to any schema 
> element including user defined ones and so can certainly be used to 
> refer to one defined in a separate W3C spec.
> 
> More significant is that the value of xsi:type is a QName whereas 
> rif:type currently seems to be a curi.

Yes, I hadn't caught that in the BLD spec before (section 2.1.2).  I'm a
bit concerned about it because the CURIE spec looks almost two-years
idle as an internal draft, and because I think one might want to use
URIs directly in simple software.  I suppose if we use CURIEs we could
propose another disambiguation technique.  The current draft says that
when you want CURIEs and URIs in the same spot and the default is URIs,
then use [...] for CURIES.  But we could could also make the default be
CURIEs and use <...> for URIs.

> I'm happy to use rif:type attribute, seems like a good move to me.

You don't see a useful synergy with XML tools in using xsi:type?

What's your take on skipping the "name" stripe?  I have to admit that
<Const type="foo">bar</Const> reads well, but I'm worried about the
inconsistency.

    -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 12:02:04 UTC