Re: Should RDFa 1.1 xsd:strings be coerced to plain literals?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:

> **
> Too lazy to check right now, but can a plain literal have a language?  If
> not, then I say -1.  Otherwise +1
>

from the announcement: "NB: This resolution makes no statement about
language-tagged literals (e.g. "foo"@en)."

Steph.


>
>
> 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
>
>