- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:15 +0200
- To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Harold,
Boley, Harold wrote:
>
> on purpose.
>
> [...] For example, unlike the [argrument names] of named-argument UNITERMs,
> the [slot keys] of frames can be complex expressions.
Yes, I understand that. My question was more trivial than that :-)
Why, in an UNITERM, the argument's name is in a sub-element (<Name>),
whereas the slot key is not?
Why not have, in an UNITERM:
<slot rif:ordered="yes">
unicodestring
TERM
</slot>
and in a Frame:
<slot rif:ordered="yes">
TERM
TERM
</slot>
A side question is: if we keep it as it is (that is, the argument names
in UNITERMs are in <Name> sub-elements, do we still need the content of
the UNITERM slots to be ordered? That is, do we still need the
rif:ordered attribute to be "yes"?
Cheers,
Christian
Csma wrote:
> in an UNITERM:
> <slot ordered="yes">
> <Name>unicodestring1</Name>
> filler1'
> </slot>
>
> and in a Frame:
> <slot ordered="yes">
> key1'
> filler1'
> </slot>
>
> Is that on purpose, or is it just oversight?
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 07:30:36 UTC