Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ]

At 18:07 12/02/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
[...]


>My assertion that the M&S got it "wrong" is the expression of an
>implicit common consensus based on what I see as pervasive practice
>and perception that literals have simple string representation in
>the graph. If there is evidence otherwise then I'm quite happy to
>stand corrected (and take my wet towel lashings like a man ;-)

Wet towel lashings are for wimps.  Its the vegimite for you :)


>Is that clearer?

I read your reason as something like:

   Most implementations don't do it, so why require them to change when there
   is a better way?

which is something I can recognize as a reason folks can have an opinion 
about, thank you.  Now we can get down to facts and test cases.

Can we establish that most implementations do not support literals as pairs?

ARP does.  Others?

Patrick, what triples do you propose be generated for:

   <rdf:Description>
      <ex:foo xml:lang="en">foo</ex:foo>
   </rdf:Description>

Brian