- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:08:38 +0100
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, phayes@ihmc.us, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Martin Duerst wrote: > BTW, I would like to insist again that because of examples such as > multilingual strings, bidirectionality, ruby, and so on, and the > fact that for the usage scenarios we see, XML Literals are just > extensions of plain literals, the need for keeping language on > XML literals is really not just because of RDF/XML (which is of > course also one of many reasons). > All these usage scenarios are embedded XHTML rather than embedded XML. I point this out to stress that span (or div) *is* a viable work around. The argument that some XML may not have a neutral element is spurious, in that in such cases we are talking about embedded data, when Patrick's arguments have additional weight. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 11:08:59 UTC