Re: VOTING on the non-binding resolutions - please read and respond ASAP

Hi Steven,

On 20/09/2007, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:02:05 +0200, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> > 1) @instanceof is the attribute name for rdf:type
>
> Strongly oppose. I'd rather have class!
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Sep/0029.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0160.html
>
> To summarise: 'instance' has already been taken in XHTML;

But @instanceof hasn't been taken...unlike @class, which most definitely has. ;)


> geeky;

And XHTML isn't? :) My mum would run a mile at the sight of all those
angle brackets and doc types.


> multiword;

And?

(Not to mention that this is not exactly without precedent:
@mediatype, @inputmode, @accesskey, @usemap...and so on.)


> the element is not an instance of;

It is.

I should have replied to your previous post where you made this point,
and I apologise. You argued that we don't get an 'instance of' until
additional properties are added, but that is not the way it works in
RDF. If we have this:

  <> rdf:type my:event .

then the 'current resource' becomes an instance of 'my:event' even if
you don't add any other properties.


> with the exception of the
> preposition 'about' all RDFa attributes are
> nouns or abbreviations of nouns.

Right, but with only six RDFa attributes, you can't really say that
it's such an exception. If you are happy with one exception to the
'noun rule' for @about, why can't we have one exception to the 'one
word rule' for @instanceof. :)

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 14:55:55 UTC