- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:42:23 +0100
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 09:15 03/07/03 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote: >Just for the record, I think that both the current removal of xml:lang >from xml literals and the creation of a distinction between xml >literals with plain text only and plain literals are in conflict with >the M&S spec, and I think you have agreed with at least one of these >points. Also for the record... I have no problem with either of the implied goals here in isolation (i.e. no distinction between XML without markup and plain text, and xml:lang applies to XML literals.) Where I do have a problem is to say (as seems to be needed to square all the goals being promoted here) there is no distinction between XML without markup and plain text, and AT THE SAME TIME to say that there is a fundamental difference in type between an XML literal with markup and plain text. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 07:36:38 UTC