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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020228065530.03436f30@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
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?

Brian
Received 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