- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 09:01:02 +0000
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, dave beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
At 21:27 07/01/2003 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote: [...] >TB> 2. What's the existence proof of a deployed vocabulary that has an ID >TB> attribute that's not named "id"? > >RDF/XML - its called ID. I'm not sure that's quite right. Dave, would you like to check I've got this right. In what I say here, I'm referring to RDFCore's clarification of the RDF specs which are still at the WD stage. Whilst RDFCore is encouraging the use of qualified attribues, i.e rdf:ID, the attribute ID is allowed on elements in the rdf namespace. Thus <rdf:Description ID="foo"> is legal. However, that ID attribute is not an ID in the DTD sense of the word. I believe this was a decision taken by the original RDF WG on the grounds that an element can have other similar ID attributes such as bagID. Hmm, thinking about it, I wonder if that is why they named it ID instead of id. Please note also, that in the case of a document with mime-type rdf+xml, the fragment identifier #foo does *NOT* denote the element with ID attribute whose value is "foo". It denotes the resource described by that element. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2003 04:00:47 UTC