W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2007

Re: [RDFa] rdf:XMLLiteral (was RE: Missing issue on the list: identification of RDFa content)

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:36:45 -0700
Message-ID: <640dd5060703182036r5914b250pf3d9ccdb37fe403b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Elias Torres" <elias@torrez.us>
Cc: "Ian Davis" <iand@internetalchemy.org>, "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Hi Elias,

With respect, reading this makes me think that you have not understood
the issue. I do apologise if it is me that has misunderstood your
comments, but here goes......


> I don't think I'm here to prove you wrong. I believe most of the
> statements you refer to are both logical and correct. You have excellent
> points but I think you are only looking at your facts only.

I don't rule that out...but to be fair, so far I have replied to all
other 'facts' that have been presented on this list.


> I repeat
> once again: we are not asking to remove such an ability, we are only
> asking to choose a default that results in less typing most of the
> times.

I appreciate the repetition Elias, although I did reply to the first
statement within about 20 minutes of you posting it! In fact, I was
writing a response as you wrote this, so I'm not sure we really need
to adopt such a tone.

Anyway, the current RDFa spec does not require anything 'extra' to be
typed one way or the other, since *all* data is of type XML literal.
Since you seem to be saying that the current RDFa spec requires more
typing than having a default of plain literal, I'm now failing to
understand what you think the options are.


> This argument is about benefit not about who has the most logical
> statements or not.

Indeed.


> The community subscribed to our mailing list is
> asking for it to be plain literals: Ivan, Ian and me so far.

Asking for what, exactly, to be a plain literal? I thought I
understood before, but now I'm really not seeing what is being
suggested.


> Is a plain
> literal default right or wrong? I'd say it depends on your perspective
> and assumptions.

That's obviously true! But the point of discussing it is for one or
other 'side' to persuade the other to _alter_ their perspective and
assumptions, so that we near enough agree. :) That's what I mean by
'logical'...so, for example, what is the logical foundation for saying
that the default data type *in an XHTML document* is a plain literal?
A good, clear answer to that question would fundamentally alter my
perspective and assumptions, and I'd be happy to see the spec altered
to reflect this.


> This is an open and issue and we need to address it.

Great...I look forward to it. But I would say, again with all due
respect, that as things stand I don't feel we're in a position to
discuss it on a telecon, and personally I would like to see further
clarification on this list from those who want to see the default
*post-parse* datatype changed to plain literals.

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 03:36:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:03 GMT