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 
namespace.
>
> 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:45 GMT