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

Re: Comment on strings and languages in RDF (rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure)

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:01:35 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>

Hello Dan,

Many thanks for your pointers.

At 16:55 03/07/02 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

>It helps me if these post-last call discussions
>are connected with the pre-last call issues list.
>In this case, the relevant issues include
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure
>I just checked to see that the issues list acknowledges what's
>happened to that issue since it was closed back in Feb 2002.
>Gold star for Brian; indeed it does cite the 9 May decision
>to change the way xml:lang works.

It mentions that decision, but does not give any justification.
Any place that's documented? Can anybody supply a good writeup?

>FYI, these issues are nearby, in my mind...
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-charmod-literals

This is unrelated (except for being about i18n)

>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xml-literal-namespaces

This is related in that the RDF Core WG, by using exclusive
canonicalization, actually cares about namespaces inherited
from (maybe far) outside the actual literal (apart from
namespaces implied by qnames in attributes and element content,
which is not RDF's fault). It seems very odd that at the same
time, inheritance of xml:lang was thrown out, even though
the later is clearly used in M&S, whereas the former is
definitely unclear in M&S.

>though I don't think we're talking about any proposals
>that would change our decisions on those.


Regards,   Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 19:15:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:06 UTC