W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Closing ISSUE-13

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 08:31:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4FACC06A.2050103@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 10/05/12 22:00, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Um. Can I raise the issue I was trying (but failing) to clarify
> through IRC yesterday? It concerns canonical lexical forms. I may be
> simply not understanding the issue, in which case please someone
> tell me so.
>
> Seems to me that if we define a canonical lexical form but also make
> it optional, then this is worse than just not mentioning it at all.

Pat,

XSD defines canonical forms for XSD datatypes - having optional 
canonical forms is an existing practice in a nearby area.

XSD 1.0:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-canonical-representation

XSD 1.1:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#vp-dateTimeCanRep

	Andy
Received on Friday, 11 May 2012 07:32:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:48 GMT