- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:00:31 +0200
- To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: "Elias Torres" <elias@torrez.us>, "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hello, is it only me (and Ralph it seems in the minutes) who find @typeof directionally wrong? Why not @oftype or @hastype? A superficial reading make it seem as "instance" was replaced by its exact inverse: "type", which obviously cannot mean the same thing. Or am I just misinterpreting how @typeof should be read? (Part of the thinking of "instanceof" was based on the N3 shorthand "is ... of", which is N3:s version of @rev. N3 also has "has" as syntax sugar for e.g. '<#me> has foaf:name "Niklas".', why I suggested @hastype last year [1]. Along with @a. ;) ) Best regards, Niklas [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0148.html> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote: > > It was considered this morning, and it was outvoted. > > -Ben > > > > On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us> wrote: > > > > > > I had sent an email asking to consider @kind as it picked up more > interest. > > > > Is it too late? or did it get rejected at one of the meetings? > > > > -Elias > > > > On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Shane McCarron wrote: > > > > > > > > As per my action item earlier today, I have updated the editors draft to > reflect the resolution that the name @instanceof be changed to @typeof. I > have also updated the DTD. Note that until implementations and the test > cases are updated, things will not validate! > > > > > > Draft is at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080403/ > > > > > > -- > > > Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 > > > Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 > > > ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 15:01:04 UTC