Re: RDF Containers in XUL Trees

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_containervocab

Particularly:

<snip>
Container membership properties may be applied to resources other than 
containers.
</snip>

Thus <rdf:li> should be a valid property in any resource.

I assume that the 'nextVal' property is conceptually similar to the 
'rdf:first' and 'rdf:rest' property: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab

Though reading the schema, it says the 'Container' class is open and can 
have more members:

<snip>
The RDF Collection vocabulary of classes and properties can describe a 
closed collection, ie. one that can have no more members
</snip>

So it sounds like Mozilla treats an <rdf:Seq> with it's need for a 
'nextVal' property like a Collection class with it's 'rdf:first' property.





R_O_O_K wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Well, Mozilla doesn't seem to go by the current spec very closely :)
> (this rdf:instanceOf for example)
> I figure out that the builder checks on the type assertion and the 
> existence of nextVal predicate to decide whether or not he current 
> object is a collection.
> 
> I have found no trace of "nextVal" in the spec.
> 
> The spec itself, on the other hand (AFAIK), says nothing about the case:
> <rdf:Seq>
>  <rdf:li/>
>  <rdf:li/>
>  <rdf:_1/>
> </rdf:Seq>
> 
> Should it be interpreted as
> <rdf:Seq>
>  <rdf:_2/>
>  <rdf:_3/>
>  <rdf:_1/>
> </rdf:Seq>
> 
> or
> <rdf:Seq>
>  <rdf:_1/>
>  <rdf:_2/>
>  <rdf:_1/>
> </rdf:Seq>
> 
> The Moz's RDF flavor is somewhat different, but I believe fully usable.
> Maybe there should be some bug to bring it up to date with the spec.
> But for the time being, maybe it'd be better to simply document the 
> differences.
> 
> Best Regards!
> Michal Ziemski