On 20 Mar 2008, at 16:16, David Peterson wrote:
+1 for typeof
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:public-rdf-in-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Birbeck
Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2008 9:18 PM
To: Daniel E. Renfer
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: RDFa Last Call Comment: Better name than 'instanceof' is
needed
Hi Daniel,
If you want to say that this <div> has a (rdf:)type of foaf:Person,
then
just say typeof="foaf:Person".
You are a boy genius. :)
I prefer 'typeof' to 'instanceof'. I prefer 'type' to 'typeof'. I
suspect (monolingually) that single words may be preferable to
compounds, from an internationalisation perspective.
I'd like to throw 'inclass' into the mix.
It has the disadvantage of being close to HTML's existing 'class'
attribute.
It has the advantage of being close to HTML's existing 'class'
attribute.
(In RDF and OWL, 'foaf:Person' is called a 'class'...)
cheers,
Dan
--
http://danbri.org/
