- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:07:48 -0500
- To: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "www-rdf-interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Uche Ogbuji wrote: > > > > If unqualified attributes are allowed then there is a specific problem with > > cases where the element is not qualified in the RDF namespace. > > Unqualified attributes should only be allowed on elements that *are* in the > RDF namespace. This is the XSLT approach (see literal result element as > stylesheet, in particular) > > So, no more problem, yes? The problem is that elements qualified by the RDF namespace and elements not qualified by the RDF namespace must then be treated differently. Try this: write out a grammar that allows your proposal, you will find that it is simpler to qualify the RDF attribute names. It is simpler to have a single attribute name for a single use, e.g. rdf:resource, rdf:ID, rdf:about, to be used regardless of the namespace of the enclosing element. > > C: the reserved attribute names in an RDF/XML document always have their > > special meaning, whatever the namespace of the element. > > Oh, but this would be beyond horrible. ... I'm not sure how C could ever come into > sane contemplation. ;-) what is so horrible? You should never get too attached to the name for a thing, its just a name. Nothing bad will happen if you utter it. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 17:09:31 UTC