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

Re: [BLD] XML syntax for the slots

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:15 +0200
Message-ID: <48522207.6060207@ilog.fr>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:49 GMT