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

On 19/03/2007 20:50, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> But more importantly, there is no social aspect to this issue. RDF
> defines both plain literals and typed literals, and it defines how
> literals are compared for equality. There's not much more to it than
> that, and to suggest that we should look at whether typed literals are
> more common than plain literals is just strange. It's like asking
> which numbers are more common. Should everyone who is 6 ft tall choose
> to be either 5 ft or 7ft, since those numbers are more common than 6?
> It's a non-argument, because we're not dealing with specific numbers,
> but a numbering _system_, and RDF is exactly the same--it's an entire
> system that you cannot cherry-pick.

OK, you've convinced me that it's not worth pursuing this. Good luck 
with RDFa.

Ian