W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > June 2008

Re: checking in on ISSUE-102

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:30:46 -0700
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF5EAF64D7.989DCED5-ON8825746A.0051FEAE-8825746C.0065B227@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Ben,

Although we also have a "type" attribute in XForms, it is a very generic 
name, and probably should have been called datatype in hindsight.  More 
importantly, it is not quite the centrally focused concept that "instance" 
is for XForms.
Also, within RDFa, the name seems to better reflect the type association 
being performed, rather than "instantiation" of a schema.

Therefore, it looks like a good improvement to me. Thanks for making the 

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Staff Member
Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Blog RSS feed: 

Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
06/15/2008 10:52 PM
checking in on ISSUE-102


As you probably saw, we resolved ISSUE-102 a few weeks ago by changing 
@instanceof to @typeof (@instanceof was already unpopular with a few 
members of the task force.)

I wanted to make sure we had your official response on that issue, since 
you raised it: are you okay with our resolution? If you're not 100% okay 
with it, can you live with it?


Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 18:31:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:57 UTC