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? BrianReceived on Thursday, 28 February 2002 02:32:50 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:20 EDT