- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:09:23 +0200
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
(very late reply, I know...) On Jun 29, 2011, at 21:13 , Shane McCarron wrote: > Too lazy to check right now, but can a plain literal have a language? If not, then I say -1. Otherwise +1 I am not sure I understand the question and the vote. - RDF plain literals, and _only those_ can have language tag - The decision Manu was referring to explicitly refers to non-language-tagged literals only (those language tags create a whole range of issues, primarily because the XSD datatype xsd:string does not have anything prepared for language tags...) I am not sure what your vote is based on these two statements... Mine is +1, b.t.w. Ivan > > On 6/29/2011 2:09 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: >> On Jun 29, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Manu Sporny wrote: >> >>> RDF WG has just issued a decision on the long-standing xsd:string vs. >>> plain literal debate: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2011/06/29/reconciling_various_forms_of_string_lite >>> >>> Should we update RDFa 1.1 Core Processing Sequence to ensure that >>> anything typed as "xsd:string" generates a plain literal? >> >> +1 >> >>> -- manu >>> >>> -- >>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) >>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >>> blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released >>> http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/05/05/payswarm-sandbox/ >>> >> >> Gregg > > -- > Shane McCarron > Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. > +1 763 786 8160 x120 > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 11:07:41 UTC