- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:34:09 +0100
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: <timbl@w3.org>
Short version: "SHOULD" in literal equality considered dangerous. I am not particularly wedded to SHOULD, and next time the WG considers this I will suggest MUST. As for > Presumably the alternative choices would have been to deprecate the > language tags on RDF literals, in favor of either using XML > with parsetype literal, <d:name rdf:parseType="literal"><span > xml:lang="fr">chat</></> > or RDF itself > d:name [ lang:french "chat" ]; > The latter I of course find by far the most manageable. > But I am sure you have all been all around the options. I take that to be specifically out of charter for this WG; in that I find M&S to be consistent and clear on this and I believe that my suggested (Unicode String,Lang-Tag?) pair representation of a literal to be a more explicit rearticulation of what it says. While that isn't perfect, I believe xml:lang is used by RDF users and there is no critical problem with it. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 05:34:39 UTC