RE: XML observation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
> Sent: 08 July, 2003 17:59
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Cc: Brian McBride; Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); phayes@ihmc.us; rdf
> core
> Subject: Re: XML observation
> 
> 
> 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.

Exactly. And those using each individual markup language
will know how best to address the markup of language
scoping for their XML fragments encapsulated in RDF as
literals.

In fact, if a given markup language does *not* provide
a means of defining arbitrary spans of mixed content
qualified for particular language, then I18N should be
slapping the designers of those markup languages around,
not RDF.

RDF needs to be neutral/agnostic to the nature of literals,
including XML literals, and that includes not positing 
its own flavor of wrapper element of XML literal content.

> And <span> or <div>, even if they are fairly 'neutral',
> are additional markup.

So is xml:lang. One uses what one must to express what
one needs to express.

No?

Patrick



> 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 Wednesday, 9 July 2003 06:15:17 UTC