W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2008

Re: BLD mini-review

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:37:52 +0000
Message-ID: <47B98A30.3070308@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Dave Reynolds wrote:

> (e) Given that the elements are qualified I think the attributes should 
> also be qualified. At least 'type' should become 'rif:type'.

OK, that's not much of an argument and the choice is not clear cut.

One line of argument is that there might be future dialects where we 
might want to mix RIF rules and other XML data (e.g. RDF data in 
RDF/XML) within a single document and that qualified attributes 
(especially rif:type given the existence of the quite different 
rdf:type) might give a better foundation for such future extensions.

However, I realize that for many XML people (I do not count myself as 
such) attributes should generally be unqualified except for things like 

If anyone cases either way then fine. Treat this as a +0 vote rather 
than a +1 vote (let alone a -1 anti-vote).

Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 13:38:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:42 UTC