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

RE: I18N Issue alternative: collapsing plain and xml literals

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:23:07 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B026302ED@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <gk@ninebynine.org>, <danbri@w3.org>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 10 September, 2003 10:36
> To: Dan Brickley; Brian McBride
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: I18N Issue alternative: collapsing plain and xml literals
> 
> 
> 
> At 16:49 09/09/03 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >I think it is important to document that WG members have, offline and
> >on, given thoughtful consideration to alternative designs and the
> >(not always immediately obvious) ramifications for the rest of our
> >design and those (such as OWL's) that depend on it.
> 
> In the spirit of documenting what WG members have considered 
> offline...
> 
> I am NOT by this message making a proposal to change the 
> design.  However, 
> IF it turns out that the current design is not accepted 
> because of I18N 
> objections, or we feel this is a likely outcome, THEN I do intend to 
> propose the design alternative mentioned.

IF it turns out that the current design is not accepted
or 
IF the WG decides that it is prudent to adopt a
different design in the interest of wider acceptance and
expedient completion of our task,
THEN I also propose the design alternative referenced by
Graham below.

Patrick

> I would like to record that I have thought about restricting 
> the function 
> of parseType=Literal to be purely syntactic, along the lines 
> indicated in 
> [1] (also described earlier, with some embellishment, by 
> Patrick [2]), and 
> have not become aware of any fundamental problem with it.  I 
> believe it 
> results in a cleaner design that we currently have.
> 
> I did not promote this because at the time it occurred to me 
> we were trying 
> to understand the underlying I18N requirements in relation to 
> the existing 
> design, and I felt introduction of an alternative design 
> would muddy the 
> debate, and would likely lead to delayed completion of the WGs work.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> [1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0113.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0165.html


------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2003 04:23:18 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 10 September 2003 04:23:24 EDT