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

RE: Languageless Typed Literals

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 11:58:54 +0200
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDGEIOCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>




> My preferences, in order, most prefered to least preferred:
> 
> Option 4, 1, 3, 2
> 
> > Option 4 in my mind is simply incorrect - there are XMLLiterals 
> for which the 
> > language is semantic meaningful.
> 
> Well, why is it not unreasonable to require that, where an xml:lang tag
> is relevant to an XML literal, that it be specified *within* the XML 
> literal. Why do we have to do it for *every* XML literal automatically?
> 

That feels to me like a step backward from what M&S provides (sort of).

e.g.
<rdf:RDF xml:lang="en">
...
  <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal">I did <em>not</em> 
like that</eg:prop>
...
</rdf:RDF>

==>

<eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"><span xml:lang="en">I did <em>not</em> 
like that</span></eg:prop>


Jeremy
Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 05:59:22 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:26 EDT