- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:11:52 -0500
- 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