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

Re: RDFa Last Call Comment: Better name than 'instanceof' is needed

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:11:52 -0500
Message-ID: <47E26298.3010209@aptest.com>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
CC: "Daniel E. Renfer" <duck@kronkltd.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

I am also happy to use @typeof.  However, I would point out that it has 
EXACTLY the same problem as @isntanceof (XHTML already has @type).  I, 
like Mark, just don't think that's a problem.

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>>  If you want to say that this <div> has a (rdf:)type of foaf:Person, then
>>  just say typeof="foaf:Person".
> You are a boy genius. :)
> I've stayed out of this debate because I'm also on the XForms Working
> Group, and although I disagree with John that there is come kind of
> confusion (I think people can keep the two concepts 'instance' and
> 'instanceof' separate pretty easily), I don't see any reason why we
> shouldn't change @instanceof if a better alternative is found.
> It's just that so far, none of the suggestions have really worked.
> Until now....
> So if this issue gets to a vote, I'd be happy with @typeof.
> Regards,
> Mark

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 13:13:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:56 UTC