- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:15:50 -0400
- To: RDFa force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Karl Dubost wrote: > Le 24 juil. 2007 à 02:18, Ivan Herman a écrit : >> I remain by @instanceof I would like to put my support behind @resourcetype instead of @instanceof for the following reasons: 1. There is already @datatype in XSD[1]. There is already @type for basic XHTML elements like A and UL [2]. There is also @codetype in OBJECT[2], @valuetype in PARAM, @enctype in FORM. Shouldn't we be picking something that is harmonious with the XHTML spec? 2. RDF is difficult enough to grasp as is without having Computer Science speak and OO words thrown into the mix. True, it is explicit in what it is. Unfortunately, the meaning of @instanceof might only be clear to people trained in the art. We should assume that most people that are authoring web pages are not trained in the art (CS). Our choices for RDF names should reflect that realization. 3. rdf:type => resource (first word) + type (last word) = resourcetype It's not really a reason, but it does make sense and explaining that to somebody is pretty easy. The explanation behind @instanceof is a bit more complicated because one has to explain what an 'instance' is to the person that is generating the HTML. I think this really comes down to a question of usability and not stomping on other name spaces. My preferences thus far: 1. @resourcetype 2. @instance 2. @instanceof -- manu [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dtd_XHTML-1.0-Strict
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 03:16:02 UTC