>>>Brian McBride said: > At 13:47 04/02/2002 -0800, Sergey Melnik wrote: > [...] > > > > Having to use parseType for *every* typed literal will be > > > far too cumbersome. > > > >Right, but not in the case when parseType declaration applies to all > >subordinate XML structure (I think that's the way parseType works right > >now). > > That isn't what I expected for parseType="Resource". Dave, what does the > syntax doc say about that? parseType is defined such that if you use something that isn't parseType="Resource", you are dealing with an XML literal. In the refactored syntax, this is an XML Infoset. If you invent a new parseType ("untidy" say), old applications will treat it as "Literal", and thus any content will be treated as an XML literal. RDF M&S did note that future parseTypes values were expected for encoding XML content, not RDF statements, but didn't say what to do with them or how they applied. See RDF M&S http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#202 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#203 At some point I'm hoping we'll decide what to do with these rich structured values in this datatypes discussion. We have discussed before various ways to do this - XML Canonicalisation, serialising and treating parseType content as a string (sequence of Unicode chars). DaveReceived on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 06:27:21 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:04 EDT