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

Re: XML observation

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:58:30 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030708105457.04cacce8@localhost>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, phayes@ihmc.us, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Hello Jeremy,

I don't think anyone would seriously claim that XML is
only either XHTML or data. There are many textual formats
that are not XHTML. xmlspec, xml2rfc, and docbook are
easy examples. Most of these may have some kind of
neutral element, but that's different in each case.
And <span> or <div>, even if they are fairly 'neutral',
are additional markup.

Regards,    Martin.

At 16:08 03/07/04 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>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 Tuesday, 8 July 2003 13:56:12 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:43 EDT