W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

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

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:58:21 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 10:15 27/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>  >>>Patrick Stickler said:


>If that is what a  literal is, why have we been using examples like "35" 
>during the entire datatyping discussion? (Should these have been ("35", 
>"Mathematics") ?) How does one define the application of a datatype 
>mapping to a (string, lang) pair ???

When it was first proposed to extend n-triples to include the language tag, 
the WG decided to hold off until we knew how datatyping worked before 
making the decision.  As I recall this was discussed at the last face to face.

>>My question was: does anyone have a compelling reason to change this.  Do 
>>you have one Patrick?
>>>  And especially since literals are
>>>>  now tidy,
>>The pair above is just as tidy as "string".
>I think the point was that literals *without lang* are tidy, which is my 
>understanding of the current situation.

Just so.  Is there a reason why literals with lang can't also be 
tidy.  They won't be tidy just on the string part.  Is that the problem?

Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 02:32:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC