W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Re: XML literals

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 01 Aug 2003 06:17:54 -0700
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, ext pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Message-Id: <1059743874.6505.10.camel@jammer.dm93.org>

On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 00:06, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> Maybe.  
>         in 1:1 correspondence with the lexical space.
> Right.

Hmm... that one gave me pause... but OK.

>         The exact nature of XML values is not specified.
> No. This bothers me. Alot.

Really? The exact nature of integers is not specified;
just various relationships like addition and
multiplication of them.

If it bothers you, then feel free to suggest an alternative.

We could pick any set that's in 1-1 correspondence
with the lexical space; e.g. pairs
	(humpty-dumpty, lexical-value)

or perhaps less churlishly...
	(http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral, lexical-value)

> It is our responsibility to define what the values of XML Literals
> are.

Only inasmuch as required to get the technology deployed.

> It's *our* datatype, and no'one else should have to define it,  or
> guess.

They don't have to guess; what Pat wrote tells them everything
they need to know.

> I've never understood the opposition to having a value space
> consisting of infosets. I wish someone would tell me what significant
> problem or issue I'm missing...

How to construct an infoset and how to compare them isn't

Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 09:18:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:07 UTC