[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: QNames in content, was: rdf in atom

To: Bill de hOra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: QNames in content, was: rdf in atom
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:32:11 +0200
Cc: Atom-Protocol Protocol <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <486B7D5C.8010100@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <4869C7E3.40403@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <486A9A6D.2040907@xxxxxxxxxx> <53FBC96C-531C-4636-A4E5-65160ACB90B0@xxxxxxxx> <486B514E.2030403@xxxxxx> <486B7D5C.8010100@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666


Bill de hOra wrote:

...
Interesting. That's no more or less ambiguous then my suggestion toannotate the source atom:title element with an attribute the defines thetarget RDF. However the attribute approach gives you brevity and is'closer' to idiomatic XML on when to choose attributes/elements.
...

Yes, it's simply a syntactical variant that avoids the QName-in-contentproblem. WebDAV (which uses expanded names for property names) uses thisall over the place.


BR, Julian

References:
- rdf in atom
  - From: Dave Pawson
- Re: rdf in atom
  - From: Bill de hOra
- Re: rdf in atom
  - From: Mark Nottingham
- QNames in content, was: rdf in atom
  - From: Julian Reschke
- Re: QNames in content, was: rdf in atom
  - From: Bill de hOra

Prev by Date: Re: QNames in content, was: rdf in atom
Previous by thread: Re: QNames in content, was: rdf in atom
Next by thread: Re: rdf in atom
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread