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. JeremyReceived on Friday, 19 October 2001 05:34:39 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:06 EDT