- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:36:01 +0000
- To: "David Peterson" <david@squishyfish.com>
- Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On 20 Mar 2008, at 16:16, David Peterson wrote: > > +1 for typeof > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-in- >> xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Birbeck >> Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2008 9:18 PM >> To: Daniel E. Renfer >> Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org >> Subject: Re: RDFa Last Call Comment: Better name than 'instanceof' is >> needed >> >> >> 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 prefer 'typeof' to 'instanceof'. I prefer 'type' to 'typeof'. I suspect (monolingually) that single words may be preferable to compounds, from an internationalisation perspective. I'd like to throw 'inclass' into the mix. It has the disadvantage of being close to HTML's existing 'class' attribute. It has the advantage of being close to HTML's existing 'class' attribute. (In RDF and OWL, 'foaf:Person' is called a 'class'...) cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 18:36:44 UTC