- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 05 Jun 2002 12:47:54 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 10:10, Brian McBride wrote: [...] > 2) RDFCore has an outstanding issue to allow qnames as attribute values as > a shorthand for a URI REF. This would mean that RDF would have attributes > which allowed either a URI or a qname in the same attribute value. I don't expect so. Rather, RDF would have one resource="..uri ref here..." attribute, and one rdf:resourceQ="...qname here..." attribute. > Would > RDF be consistent with this finding if it were to go ahead and allow that. Whether it's consistent with the finding or not seems irrelevant; it's just not workable to have one attribute take either a qname or a URI ref. (Technically, XML Schema allows unions of that sort, but they're messy and I wouldn't support using them in RDF.) -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 13:47:30 UTC