XML Syntax Issues / root element

I'm thinking about all the changes you just made to 
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues_2

[  I wish the wiki could do color-coded changes in context.  :-(  ]

Two quick questions:

1.  Under "Is the XML root element 'rdf:RDF'?", I think you
    misunderstood the third option.  The third option, "use something
    dialect-specific", would mean, for instance, using "rif:BLD" as the
    XML root element (for BLD documents).

    I think we've always had consensus that the dialect-of-authoring
    will always be identified in the document, so the advantage you added
    (allowing implementation to select the appropriate tools) is not
    *added* by making the dialect name be the root element; it was there
    all along.    I think the only advantage of making it the root
    element is that XML tools that know nothing about RIF (eg
    schema-driven editors) might make better use of it that way, but
    that was the reason I already listed.

2.  (this is really a comment on BLD)

    <arg><Const type="xsd:long">49</Const></arg>

    Why are you using "type" (eg rif:type) instead of xsi:type there?
    Is that on purpose?

    More on that -- Using attributes on Const vs. using subclass of
    Const is a style issue, as I understand it.  What's the reason for
    doing it this way?  (I guess it corresponds to the terse approach in
    the formal syntax?)

In general, it's looking like that issues list needs to be refactored
again.  Your proposal uses attributes and uses this implied "name"
property.  Those probably need to be called out as specific issues.  Are
dialect designers to be free to put things in attributes when they want,
or is "type" somehow fundamental and shared across all dialects?

      -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 00:27:09 UTC