- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:13:38 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 22:02 18/10/2002 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] >Given the deployed code using parseType="Literal" and the I18N use cases such >as ruby and bidi its a non-starter to try and remove this functionality. But >if we had two new types rdf:ClassicLiteral, rdf:ClassicXMLLiteral then we >could move all the complexity of XML Literals into a datatype definition.e There have been several suggestions along these lines. I would expect such a proposal to get support if it can be done quickly. >This would address TBLs issue here in that RDF as an abstraction, would be >free from the XML base. > >Disadvantages are: >+ defining a datatype outside XSD, not a team play Not really. Used xsd datatypes where you can. Protecting our legacy is only reasonable. Unifying existing M&S specs with xsd datatypes is a team play. [...] >I guess if there was some pull from the WG in this direction, I would be >inclined to add a note to the doc: > >[[ >Note: the WG is still considering whether to unify the treatment of literals. >This would involve regarding all literals as typed literals, and would use >two new datattypes (rdf:ClassicLiteral rdf:ClassicXMLLiteral) to correspond >to the old String Literal and XML Literal respectively. >]]] We don't have time for that. Make the call. Brian
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 04:12:24 UTC