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

[...]

> I was pretty careful to be sure the way we resolved
> the lang issue doesn't matter to the model theory.

I wouldn't have expected anything else from you ;-)

> To the model theory, a literal is still just a string. We can
> encode two strings in one, after all, no? Here's the
> n-triples design DaveB and I kicked around after the meeting:
>
>    ("abc", 'en') ->    "abc"-en
>    ("abc",  none) ->   "abc"
>    ("abc", 'fr') ->    "abc"-fr

2ed

> Also, for XML literals, we'll have xml("canonical-form...", "en").

then, we could also write
  :Mary :age xml(<int xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">45</int>,) .
or some such (in canonical form, which I forgot)

> The point is: the literal is syntactically evident in the RDF document.

true

--
Jos