- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:41:38 -0500
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- CC: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Well.... I guess I could go review the REC but in my opinion there is no room to interpret anything other than xml:lang as defining the language for a literal. If there *were* any room for this, it would be possible for different implementations to produce different triples from the same source document. That would be disastrous. Unless I am missing something. Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Toby, > > >> Note the phrase "*any* language information". The document then goes on to >> say that language information *can* be provided using xml:lang, but it >> doesn't say that other sources of language information cannot be explored. >> >> I don't know whether this flexibility was intentional, but it is certainly >> present in the syntax document. Similar language is employed where it talks >> about parsing the element for URI mappings. >> > > Yes...indeed. :) > > Unfortunately (in my opinion), there was pressure to restrict the spec > to *only* RDFa and XHTML, which means that there are weasle words > around things like base and lang. > > Regards, > > Mark > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Saturday, 14 March 2009 02:43:10 UTC