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

Re: xml literal and xslt

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:02:25 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 12:53 10/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>7: What's the other path?
>If the above proposal looks too heavy, I would suggest dropping qnames in
>attribute values from the level of ambition, and merely trying to not
>prevent implementations from treating unusual namespaces unusually. We would
>then stick with "Literal" and "Resource" as the only two values of
>parseType. Vagueness is possible about precisely what string is produced. A
>more limited interoperablity could be achieved by concentrating the spec on
>the equaity of literals.
>I am happy to produce a second proposal based around that path.

One thing to bear in mind is DAML's requirements.  Should we consider cases
where a daml:unambiguousProperty and a daml property with cardinality
constraints take parseType=Literal values.

Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 10:03:54 UTC

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