- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:37:52 +0000
- To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Dave Reynolds wrote: > (e) Given that the elements are qualified I think the attributes should > also be qualified. At least 'type' should become 'rif:type'. OK, that's not much of an argument and the choice is not clear cut. One line of argument is that there might be future dialects where we might want to mix RIF rules and other XML data (e.g. RDF data in RDF/XML) within a single document and that qualified attributes (especially rif:type given the existence of the quite different rdf:type) might give a better foundation for such future extensions. However, I realize that for many XML people (I do not count myself as such) attributes should generally be unqualified except for things like xlink. If anyone cases either way then fine. Treat this as a +0 vote rather than a +1 vote (let alone a -1 anti-vote). Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 13:38:28 UTC