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

Re: Typed literals text

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 17 Oct 2002 15:43:45 -0500
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1034887429.27788.1959.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 01:07, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
> To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: 16 October, 2002 15:36
[...]
> > XSD says:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#string
> 
> I consider the XML Schema position to be far too extreme. Yes, some
> writing systems may not be expressable as a plain Unicode string,
> but many, of not most, are, and as you point out, there is no reason
> why there could not exist a subtype of xsd:string which includes
> a specialized lexical grammar to provide for such writing systems.
> In fact, I would argue that an XML literal, in RDF at least, is
> really a subtype of xsd:string, with a lexical grammer that reflects
> lexical forms of XML infosets.

Hm... that argument suggests that integer and date
are subtypes of xsd:string too, with a lexical
grammar that reflects numerals and date-strings.

XML infosets are not strings any more than
integers are.

> 
> IMO, XML Schema got it wrong.

I disagree.

Moreover, XML Schema followed the advice[1] of the
I18N WG on this; I recommend we do likewise.

If we do otherwise, I'll be obliged to get the I18N
WG to confirm that we had a good reason for doing so.


[1] I can't seem to find records of their advice.
But I'm pretty sure it's there, and I will have
to check with the I18N WG, as well as the
XML Schema WG, if we do otherwise.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 16:43:10 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:27 EDT