W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2008

Re: BLD mini-review

From: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:48:17 +0100
Message-ID: <47B98CA0.9090900@tu-cottbus.de>
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> 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.
It is useful to qualify attributes too if we consider them as a  kind of 
(datatype) property.  Switching between attributes and  elements is 
easier if attributes are qualified  names  since, according with  XML 
namespaces  rec, unqualified attributes does not belong to the default 
> 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
Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 13:49:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:49 UTC