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

Re: datatype literals and lang codes

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:48:48 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 11:28 21/10/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:


>Here a few that come to mind...
>1. Backwards compatability with existing usage.

I think we'd need a few examples to reference

>2. Consistency in the treatment of literals which promotes generic code.

That seems a bit weak.  I would have thought the potential for user 
confusion far outweighed that.

>3. M&S says that language codes are part of literals, and typed literals
>    are still literals.

That is very weak.  Typed literals are a new idea; we have flexibility there.

We don't need a lot of justification.  Just one strong reason would be better.

Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 04:46:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:01 UTC