Yes, I think that if we can reasonably simplify this area we should leap at the opportunity to do so. #g -- At 08:41 15/04/2003 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >XMLLiterals and langauge tags >========================= > >gk > >>a typed literal with a language tag > >>is > >>syntactically OK, > >path > >yes > > >>but ill-formed, > > >no, it just has some redundant information in it > >Pat is right, he is also right to say > > > FWIW, seems to me that by trying to keep the syntax a wee bit simpler > > we have made everything else a lot more complicated. I would like to > > see lang tags purged from typed literals altogether, they seem to > > play no useful role, even in XML (since you can always include them > > in the actual XML document-character string, right?). > >I personally think we have 'new information' [1] in that the reagle decision >allows a simplish resolution of pfps-08 to align XMLLiteral with the other >datatypes, which then means that the lang tag would never be used on type >literals and could be purged. I guess that procedurally that would be >reopening reagle-01, reagle-02, pfps-08 - and it might be better to get on >with the other issues first. (Even superficially related ones, such as >danc-0? goofy literals, are orthogonal). > >Jeremy > >[1] "So finish the job! :-)" >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0056.html ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5EReceived on Friday, 25 April 2003 11:30:28 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:01 EDT