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

RE: I18N Issue alternative: collapsing plain and xml literals

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:49:06 +0000
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, "ext Graham Klyne" <gk@ninebynine.org>, Patrick St ickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <6HbdwNfs15gh.qRwHVxn8@mail.nokia.com>


Agreed. Though if we went down that path,
I can't imagine why we wouldn't include such
treatment, since all the pieces would automatically
be in place and the benefits are significant.

Cheers,

Patrick
 

_____________Original message ____________
Subject:	RE: I18N Issue alternative: collapsing plain and xml literals
Sender:	ext Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date:		Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:36:49 +0000

At 11:50 11/09/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > >  <rdf:Desription rdf:about="#something"
> > xmlns:ex="http://example.com/"
> > >    <ex:foo parseType="Literal" xml:lang="en"
> > rdf:datatype="http://example.com/x"><b>foo</b></ex:foo>
> > >  </rdf:Description>
> >
> > Is that currently legal syntax?
>
>Not currently. The proposals that Graham and I both
>submitted included the ability to combine rdf:datatype
>and rdf:parseType="Literal" to define XML encoded lexical
>forms for arbitrary complex types (e.g. xhtml:table).

I would add that while this seems a natural development from treating 
rdf:parseType="Literal" as a purely syntactic option for RDF/XML, it is in 
no way central to that design, whose main advantage (IMO) is it's relative 
simplicity.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 02:49:19 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 12 September 2003 02:49:24 EDT