RE: editoral comments on rdf:text

Hello,

[snip]

> >
> > I loved the first example.   (it's odd, but cool.)
> 
> The "foo-bar" language example?? I *hated* it. Invalid data is always uncool.
> 

I just wanted to point out that the whole point of this example is to show that
unregistered tags are in the value space of rdf:text. This is really necessary:
for specifications such as OWL the value space must be fixed and should not
change as new language tags are added (otherwise the consequences of an OWL
ontology would change over time -- clearly a bad idea). But then, by the very
nature of the example, I *needed* to use an invalid language tag. I hope that in
this light, the example won't be so objectionable.

Regards,

	Boris