Ben Adida wrote: > Mark Birbeck wrote: >> This was indeed useful...thanks. :) > > Yes, it was, thanks very much! > >> That's correct. Note that this is a _consequence_ of applying chaining >> rules consistently, rather than an initial design goal. > > I disagree with this. It's a consequence in *your* mental model, which > we did not fully understand until now. So in fact, it's important to > note that we never agreed to this model. We agreed on some specific > chaining examples. And those still stand, as they are compatible with my > processing model, too. > For the record, as Mark noted in his reply: my mail was to make some sense for me and to see if I understand Mark's model. So yes, Ben, that is true, and that was the intention... Ivan > In my model, chaining does one thing: it connects a "right-hand" > attribute (or lack thereof) with a "left-hand" attribute, when > conditions are correct. But an attribute doesn't change hands. @href is > never the subject of @property on the same element, nor of @instanceof. > I find this shifting around of attributes quite confusing and not > particularly useful. > > So, the discussing has been useful, but it has convinced me even more > that, if we go down the path of @href completing @rel, we have to buy > into all of Mark's model. It is consistent, for sure, but it is far too > complicated for my taste. > > -Ben -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 08:09:29 UTC